< 20 October	22 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is Delete, as this does not meet WP:NTOUR PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a Girl Tour[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage does not meet WP:NTOUR, WP:GNG, as it is a combination of routine coverage announcing the concert, a setllist, and a Twitter post. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage of the tour as such; all the citations are self-published. Wikipedia is not a gig guide. Fails WP:NTOUR and WP:GNG. If this article is deleted, I wouldn't be surprised to see it reappear under a modified title. I've seen that happen before. Narky Blert (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject's lack of notability since it fails WP:NTOUR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bellacor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. My WP:BEFORE search turns up a number of press releases, but nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV or NCORP. Minor mentions of the company are made in references to the GrabYourWallet campaign (Bellacor was a target of said campaign), but again nothing explicity about Bellacor. I will also note that the company, founded in 2000, has only 65 employees and (as before) a noticeable lack of coverage of any kind.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Israel[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure to meet notoriety guidelines Morganstanley4611 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage I found was local and/or promotional. That's not enough to meet the GNG. I also didn't find anything to show that he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Sandals1 (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Scientists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Book report which merely summarises content Mccapra (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but completely rewrite (I may get to this if I have time). The book's been reviewed by The Sunday Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Foreign Affairs, Kirkus Reviews, etc., more than satisfying WP:BOOKCRIT. Next time, do some checking WP:BEFORE. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. The article could stand cleanup and expansion (e.g., a "reception" section), but that's not the purpose of AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK with multiple book reviews. James500 (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with multiple reviews in reliable publications (thankyou Clarityfiend for listing them), also with WorldCat showing that this book is held by over 1,000 libraries worldwide (1st place i go to when looking for indications of possible notability) it would be surprising if there werent. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Catrìona (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. –Vami♜_IV♠ 09:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sello Galane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unbelievable references, flowery langauge and not clearly notable Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was declined as lacking notability, whereupon the creator moved it to mainspace without improving it at all. Little, if anything, to indicate notability. No inline references. Not adhering to WP:NPOV. Eagleash (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much references which meets lacking notability, but as I agree with Eagleash, this article dosen't meet the WP:NPOV. Sheldybett (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame this left draftspace. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 00:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos H. Amado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that fails to meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability.

The one independent source is listed second in the references section, the 2005 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac. Unfortunately, there is no link, so it's depth of coverage cannot be immediately determined. Despite this, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one, and various source searches are providing nothing usable to establish notability

The first listed source in the article's references section is from the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, which is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History is a primary source is just plain rubbish. We do not exclude published encyclopedias from being sources because of who their publisher was. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History was edited by 3 respected academics, and should not be ecluded as a source based on who its publisher was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – a book published by a publisher that is owned by an LDS-related holding company, the latter of which is wholly owned by the LDS Church equates to a primary source, in my opinion. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Your opinion is built to exclude articles on LDS related topics at a very high rate. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history was edited by three respected academics. Over and over editors have rejected your attempts to use ownership to exclude all sources. This has happened with BYU Studies, the Deseret News, and in the same way should apply to The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and many other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source, and has nothing to do with any other Wikipedia content. Primary sources are usable to verify information, but are not usable to establish notability. As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I neither know about LDS organisation nor do I particularly care. Because LDS is a religious group with unorthodox beliefs, it has little contact with mainstream Christianity. This means that almost anything published about LDS is going to be published by LDS-related organisations. The only other material is likely to be things critical of LDS, i.e. with an anti-LDS POV. There is a case for arguing that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not an independent source. WP's objection to WP:OR is that it is liable to be unreliable, even the editor's invention or perhaps exaggerated. I used to see WP articles based on an old Catholic Encyclopaedia. Inevitably its editors would have been Catholics and promoting a Catholic POV. We have an article on almost every Anglican bishop in UK and elsewhere and have concluded that such bishops are notable per se. We need someone who understands LDS hierarchies to decide what is the equivalent level to Anglican bishops in the LDS church. I have never seen the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, but my guess is that it is the equivalent of a specialist biographical dictionary. We accept people in (British) Dictionary of National Biography as almost automatically notable. Even if the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not independent, I think we should trust it to be promoting the truth about LDS history and WP may need to accept its editor's judgments as to which LDS leaders are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are some discussions in which editors have considered exempting LDS leaders from the WP:GNG in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Note that the consensus has not been in favor of such exemptions, though there is a large range of opinion and arguments. One of the most interesting features of the (many) recent AfDs for LDS figures is the wide variation in results. It seems that, in practice, an LDS leader's notability within the church is not a good predictor of their notability under WP:GNG. To me this suggests updating WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES with empirical data to guide future decision making. Bakazaka (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it is worth, most of the articles in the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History are non-biographical. The articles through Amado are "Aaronic Priesthood", "Elijah Able", Angel Abrea, "Academies" covering academies operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "Activities Committees", Adam, discussing him in the light of LDS theology, Adom-ondi-Ahman, "Law of Adoption, "Africa", "Agent", "Alabama", "Alaska", "Albania", "Alberta, Canada", Amanda Inezs Knight Allen, James Allen, and Almanacs. On the issue of the Catholic Encyclopedia (and also the Encyclopedia Judaica among others), not only have they been used as sources, we at times had many articles that incorproated text from these works verbatim.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I align myself near to Bakazaka’s arguments and applaud any efforts to revise and update WP:CLERGY. I can’t understand why would “Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican Communion bishops, are typically found to be notable.” For me, individuals who have achieved notability and preeminence within a church or denominational universe but has not crossed over to the interfaith realm or trickled down into the Modern secular society should not pass WP:CLERGY, let alone WP:GNG. Regardless of the way it was looked at before, I think that today we would find considerable agreement with the argument that bishops from any denomination do not have automatic clearance into WP. It often happens, however, that wherever any of these denominations comprise a critical mass, their bishops tend to have an oversize influence in the society at large. Each case, then, should be evaluated individually. Moreover, the Catholic Encyclopedia is gradually being considered here as an unreliable or primary source, and its articles about individuals with skepticism (see here and here). But as I have said someplace else, if we would consider the Encyclopedia of LDS History as a secondary and independent source, we would have to do the same with the encyclopedias of any other denomination even when the individuals in the articles have no relevance outside of their religious communities. Even when this publication may or may not be an official mouthpiece of the organization, its intention is to focus on topics of interest primarily to its members (the CE, in contrast, tried moving beyond its own territory). Also, the fact that the Encyclopedia of LDS History has been written by bonafide scholars or that it includes articles on history, theology and sociology (and any other academic “.gy”) should not count as reasons for us to consider it a secondary source by default. Of course, there must be cases where it would serve as such, but that would not be the norm when the topic has stayed only within the church’s coverage. Most denominational encyclopedias have or are being written by teams of distinguished scholars too. Ultimately, the attempt here is to keep WP from becoming an extension of any religious organization and thus maintaining the religious & secular worlds (i.e., church and state) interrelated yet separated. It is for the best of everybody. Just ask Roger Williams. Den... (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is flawed both in that it does not properlry understand how these denomination specific works are created and the whole argument basically says religious life is not important and should be ignored by Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saying that my argument is flawed does not make it so. If you re-read my comments you may notice that I am not discounting religious life at all. On the contrary, I want to make sure that non would take preeminence over others. My main point regarding this particular entry is that for any religious leader to appear in Wikipedia it should transcend its religious community. That's it. No more. No less. That is the premise in WP:CLERGY. And even when I am not fond of how it privileges the title of bishop I can understand that it assumes that a religious leader of that stature is sure to have made an impact in the community at large too. And even so, there are some here that discount the title. This particular case, for example, was about to be deleted regardless of the broad coverage it had. Pay attention well as to how the guidelines also keep "bishops" of lesser denominations away from WP:

"People listed as bishops in Pentecostalist denominations may fail AFDs unless they have significant reliable third-party coverage. Clerics who hold the title bishop but only serve an individual parish or church are typically considered the same as local pastors or parish priests."

And yet, it makes sure that "Heads of large, Protestant denominations are generally found to be notable," a position that Russell M. Nelson occupies in the LDS (note: some do not consider LDS a Protestant denomination and LDS themselves often see themselves as a step further from it: here, here and here). Perhaps in the revisions to the WP:Clergy we should include a clearer treatment of the LDS. Nevertheless, until then and unless proved otherwise, Amado has not achieved this status nor has he gain notability outside of the LDS Church. Den... (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this company does not meet notability standards to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mailjet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious COI and promotionally written article created and primarily written by a Mailjet and at least one other (if not the same) COI user, consisting mostly of enticement over all the cool things the product can do. Meanwhile, I find scant mention of this product in independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. Of the sources cited, most are press releases or rote announcements about capital raising. One of the TechCrunch articles helps, but it isn't enough. Largoplazo (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing references largely fail WP:ORGIND, topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally by Mailjet and subsequently developed by further WP:SPAs. It describes the company funding and makes claims for the features of their products, backed by press releases. My searches are also finding partnership announcements but not the WP:RS coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that there is enough coverage of him, as a Youtuber and as the son of the President of Indonesia. The specific content objected-to by Jytdog has been removed. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaesang Pangarep[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

obvious spam. On top of the promotional pressure for the subject, this has also been subjected to the bizarre "Taslimson Foundation" spamming (see ANI) -- see this removal of my speedy nomination and restoring of Taslimson spam.) And bragging about high school grades in the lead? really? TOOSOON at best - promo junk currently. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: president's son, notable Youtuber, subject of a controversy that made it to national news, not to mention the buttload of national coverage. Some pruning of unencyclopedic language is in order, but there is plenty of useful and properly sourced content left in there and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reasons to keep, in Wikipedia. The "controversy" is a WP:BLP1E social-media-circus that doesn't have long term significance. This is just gossipy trash. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What does the "Taslimson Foundation" spam even has to do with the article? Sources are fine and person easily passes GNG Juxlos (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please respond to each other's arguments instead of merely asserting your belief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the subject itself is notable, as he is a well-known celebrity in Indonesia. Content has been significantly improved by other editors, and it's far from being a "gossipy trash". I would say that it's at least as notable as Marian Shields Robinson Mimihitam (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javablackbelt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks sources, inadequate RS found in search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a small company that got bought up and disappeared, one ref in the article, google and books showing some historic coverage, no lasting impact and likely never notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a little unclear whether this could clearly be said to fall under NCORP (hatnote aside), but whether NCORP, GNG or NWEB I don't believe notability is satisfied. I couldn't find any suitable sourcing that indicates notability was ever satisfied by the website. Couldn't see an evident reasonable redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Fairbanks Harris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNG Fail. Article sources and a general search do not show enough RS to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As ThatMontrealIP notes, failure of WP:GNG. I too looked around for references, and found precious little. Yes, she exists, yes she's as the article states, but there's almost nothing out there about her but passing references. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Of note; while searching I found the article to be a copy of https://www.biographies.net/bio/m/0bwl4l5. See Earwig report. I can't tell whether that resource copied from here or us from them. This article's been around for 8 years, so who knows. Also of note; the article is a failure of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. It appears Ms. Harris created the article about herself. She's not edited in 8 years, nor has she edited anything else but her article. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not Linkedin. If being the Senior Conservator of Paper at the Yale Center for British Art is a position that confers notability on the subject, then we should have a an article on Soyeon Choi, the Head Conservator, instead. Vexations (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Some of the commenters have suggested a move to Wikipedia:Wikimedian of the Year but there's not a consensus for that move here; it could be proposed as a WP:RM. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian of the Year[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV about the award itself since the last AfD. Only passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information needs to stay, one reason - Wikipedia:Inherent notability. But according to nomination reason WP:SIGCOV, maybe it can be shifted to a different namespace such as Wikipedia rather than main namespace. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Wikimania. Source searches, including ones under its former name of "Wikipedian of the Year" are providing very little coverage. Merging will improve the suggested merge target article.~~ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, struck my !vote above. Most coverage is about recipients of the award, but a sufficient amount of this exists to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sufficient references, seems notable enough for an article/list. @DiplomatTesterMan: this article was moved to Wikipedia: namespace before (after the previous deletion discussion), but a new article on it was started a few years later so it got merged back into the mainspace version, I'm not convinced that the same wouldn't just happen again next year. @Northamerica1000: Why do you think 'Wikimania' is the relevant article here rather than e.g., 'Jimmy Wales' who decides the award, or 'Wikipedia community' for the recipient group? It is awarded at Wikimania, but it's only a small-ish part of Wikimania (and is much better as a distinct article IMO). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are clearly independent sources focusing mostly on the recipients of the award, which combined together make it sufficiently notable to merit an article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if not, move to the Wikipedia: namespace - clear sourcing and notability to the Wikipedia community even if this AfD succeeds Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "hey! why haven't i been nominated for this?" "what coola, for your WP contributions of book articles about ducks and fluffy animals?" "ok, fair point." Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Patrick[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACTOR as he hasn't starred in any notable film, tv show or other. Article only cites IMDb and I was unable to find enough coverage in a WP:BEFORE for him to clear the general notability guidelines. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Like the nominator, following a search of sources/news articles/etc, I have come up with nothing to suggest that WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR are met. On NACTOR, the only material that I could find is that already listed on IMDB. And, at that, none of it suggests that the subject has had "significant roles in multiple notable [works]". On GNG, I can find no interviews, editorials or other news items that would suggest that the subject has been the topic of significant coverage. In short, the subject here doesn't seem to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unsourced BLP and no evidence he meets any standard under WP:NACTOR. Sandals1 (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any support that meets WP:GNG. --JAMillerKC (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Johnson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet notability for basketball players. Also, references are sorely lacking. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She was drafted, but apparently didn't get onto the court for her only season with the Portland Fire.[1] Her ASU college bio doesn't list anything that would qualify her either. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is insufficient coverage to show that WP:GNG is met and she also appears to fail WP:NHOOPS. She's not listed at the WNBA website's list of historical players [2] so apparently she never actually played in the WNBA, despite the article's implication that she did. Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has very little relevance as an article across dates of no significant value and better to be either merged with Structure of the British Army or related pages Sammartinlai (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article has no references and no significant value. Gavbadger (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no overarching source provided for the vast bulk of the list. Creator has been doing this with a large number of lists and is not communicating or providing proper sourcing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minimal encyclopedic value, duplicate of existing topic. Catrìona (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Does not refer to any source and lacks relevant data as there is already an article on a larger topic available, so clearly fails WP:GNG.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redencion 911[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please note, the number of AfDs is misleading - the original nominator accidentally nominated it twice at the time, so the page labelled as the second AfD is effectively the first.

This was kept at AfD in 2008 because it was asserted that Masapunk was one of the biggest indie/punk labels in Iberoamerica. I'm not sure that's the case. I wasn't able to find any sources discussing Masapunk in an in-depth manner. They don't have an article on this or any other Wikipedia (and I checked under Masapunk and Massapunk). The website for the label is defunct and no new one comes up on a Google search. To sum up: claim of significance under WP:NBAND #5 doesn't hold water.

Speaking of sources, I didn't find any discussing Redencion 911 in any depth either. The appearances in Maximumrocknroll are an interview (primary source, no notability) and a tour diary (same thing basically). The Revista Punto Final link in the article is dead for me and I couldn't find it on archive.org. The band doesn't have an article on any other wiki, so no sources to poach. Usual caveat, I'm an English speaker so I'm not great with Spanish-speaking sources; will withdraw if there are reliable ones located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Davide di Benedetto[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Driver who haven't raced in any professional racing series, and haven't any significant achievements, fails any WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Basically an unsourced BLP of a non-notable driver. Doesn't meet the GNG or the notability standards for race car drivers.Sandals1 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is a lack of independent, reliable sources to show that this company meets the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7layers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine announcements; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Janslovic with few other contributions. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Not independently notable of the parent company and appears too insignificant to be worth a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The 7layers entry complies with the notability guidelines. There has been significant coverage of the subject in reliable, indepedent third party sources, such as the German Focus Money (magazine) (a), the Financial Times (b), or the German Markt & Technik (c, e & f) and in literature (d)."

a) - Focus Money
b) - Financial Times
c) - Markt & Technik
d) Freie Fahrt für freie Maschinen : zur Ethik des vernetzen Autos coverage from Springer Publishing]
e) - Markt & Technik
f) - Markt und Technik

--Sailorway (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: the above "keep" vote comes from a user who is being paid to edit the page (see User:Sailorway); they were also the one who moved the article from userspace into mainspace, bypassing WP:AFC. In any case, the sources offered above consist of passing mentions and routine notices such as "Aeroflex and 7Layers cooperate" and "7layers is expanding its EMV and ERM testing capabilities and has now opened a new absorber hall at its headquarters in Ratingen". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ORG does meet minimum standards set in WP:ORG and have reliable news sources 1, 2, 3 but page need to be bit clean from neutral point of view. Rs7j (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Rs7j (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- The test isn't for coverage in a "reliable news source" but for coverage that is independent (including being intellectually independent) - see WP:ORGIND. The references above fail the criteria since they are entirely based on company announcements and/or quotations/interviews with connected persons. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, references are based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My own searching failed to find WP:RS to meet WP:CORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Al Ghaith[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are very few hits on Google, there is only one link at List of United Arab Emirates-related topics (which most UAE-related articles are linked to) and this is a stub. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, improvement is sorely needed here, but he has held an WP:NPOL-passing position in a national government cabinet. We do not delete articles just for being stubs, and I strongly suspect that the nominator only looked for English-language sourcing while failing to search on the subject's name in Arabic. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: Just saw that this could be a reliable source that is currently not in the article. Maybe, I am wrong to AfD this article? Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has served in a national cabinet position. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinocchio's Pizza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This undoubtedly notable locally business does not meet our notability standards. There is only one discussion in detail, and that comes from a college newspaper, which are seldom held to be WP:RS. It does not even appear to make WP:GNG, as there is only the one discussion in detail and it is from a sketchy source. It certainly does not make WP:ORG, esp WP:CORPDEPTH, as it does not have any sources (other than a Facebook post) from outside Metro Boston. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you're coming from, but here's why I think it's a notable article.

I mentioned that Sally's Apizza and Modern Apizza both have their own Wikipedia pages, with comparable (or perhaps slightly worse) quality of citations. I would say that Pinocchio's is comparably notable as those two pizzerias in New Haven. But I actually think the better example is the Tasty Sandwich Shop (The Tasty), which is in many ways comparable to Pinocchio's:
- Both are famous as Harvard institutions, and in particular famous late-night institutions.
- Both are part of the story of the gentrification of Harvard Square (The Tasty closing, Pinocchio's moving), a well documented phenomenon.
- Both are famous, in part, because of regular references in literature and film (Good Will Hunting mentioned The Tasty, Suits and The Social Network mention/show Pinocchio's, among a bunch of others for both).
- Both have citations that over-index on Boston but include some national coverage.
I would say your general point on student newspapers would be true, but The Harvard Crimson is actually used quite often as a reference on Wikipedia, so it seems to command the necessary credibility.
I do think there needs to be more color and detail, that can be worked on as more people see and add to the page. You will, however, find it referenced in national publications, sometimes in the context of the pizza but usually in the context of Harvard.

With all that said, I appreciate your thoughtfulness here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCarlsonIV (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, CarlCarlsonIV, it is very important that you sign your comments here (and elsewhere too). It is also important that you read the instructions for participating at AfD linked at the top right of the page. Once you do, you will see two things. First, you have not actually !voted here yet, and also, that WP:OTHERSTUFF is seldom a persuasive argument here. Fame =/= notability. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. for the reasons outlined above, I think we should keep this article. CarlCarlsonIV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are obligated to search for alternatives to deletion (see wp:ATD). This place is not just any pizza joint, it is apparently on Harvard Square. As for Times Square and maybe the Ginza and some other specific commercial hubs, perhaps there is room/need for a list or table of commercial establishments there. These are landmarks visited by millions, literally, cumulatively. How about a list-table entry for this, as a merge/redirect target, within the Harvard Square article?

Also, Harvard Square Historic District (covered in Harvard Square article) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Its NRHP nomination document can't be linked directly, but is accessible by clicking on the small image "NR" at this MACRIS page. It doesn't mention pizza AFAICT, but it lists 66 Winthrop and 69 Winthrop and other addresses on Winthrop (see page 25), but not 74 Winthrop, the stated address for Pinocchio's Pizza. However Pinocchio's may in fact be in a historic building which is a contributing building to the district. Street address numbers change sometimes and buildings are often listed at multiple street addresses. Can someone who knows the place consult the NR document and try to sort this out? --Doncram (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the above, if you look at the PDF in the INV tab on the MACRIS site ([3]) and go to page 35, the building highlighted on the corner of Winthrop and Boylston (now JFK) Streets is the Pinocchio's building. Not sure why it doesn't show up in the directory, however—maybe it's a building that has two different address, and the Pinocchio's address isn't the one they selected. That's speculative though. The pictures between 37-45 aren't great, but pictures 13 and 14 do pretty clearly put the location in the technical boundaries of Harvard Square. ----Eddy23 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eddy23, Doncram - if you are advocating a redirect to Harvard Square as an ATD, please articulate that. I would be happy to support that as an ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, then merge/redirect. --Doncram (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do think it's notable enough and has enough independent media coverage (among other things) to back that up. --Eddy23 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The college newspaper isn't the only sources, by any means. Also, college papers generally pass WP:RS, the main problem with them is in independence rather than reliability, which isn't an issue when it comes to a pizza place. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have started a sockpuppet investigation, so please wait until it is closed. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local reviews of a local restaurant do not provide notability. No indication this is anything beyond a run-of-the-mill restaurant popular among local residents, and "best cheap eats" listings do not count. Reywas92^Talk 18:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:ORG standards for basic notability: the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (emphasis mine). I can't find any coverage that is more than a passing mention or a couple of sentences that basically say "it's a pizza parlor". Some of the cited articles do not even mention Pinocchio's. Also seems to be a heavy reliance on Mark Zuckerberg's dining habits in the cited articles, but again, WP:ORG reminds us that "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it."Glendoremus (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be only routine coverage in local news. Not enough for GNG or NCORP. MB 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear. A redirect can be created separately; no one seems to be arguing to keep the content and replace it with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheiron Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label re-created again by editor with what I strongly believe to be an undeclared COI. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the issues raised in the previous AfD have been addressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has clear credible media sources and any label under Capitol Music and Universal getting mainstream news coverage is notable. The issue in the previous AfD appears to have been adequately addressed by the new article's author, so I respectfully disagree with you on this point Rosguill. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no conflict of interest and have based my updated article on current newsworthy mainstream entertainment media sources. The article has been updated using such appropriately , and I even made a new edit to satisfy the question of any unclear connection to the old Cheiron Studios. If anybody wants to disagree with my article updates that is one thing, but let's stay away from any inaccurate conflict of interest accusations based on one editor's strong opinion. Thank you. --Music2015 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should be a Stub for now with AfD consideration withdrawn. --2603:9001:305:6F00:F5E9:1FD2:9F28:3A54 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on the reliability of the sources, the first source gives a drive-by mention, and the second source does not mention the label at all. Therefore WP:GNG is not close to being met. My standards on notability for record labels are looser than most, but this is not notable by record label standards in that it has no length of history, no roster of notable artists, and can not claim to have made any perceptible impact on the direction of any particular genre. Having a joint venture (distribution deal) with a major label does not inherit notability for a record label. Now.... if Rhames goes on to have a #1 record, or even begins to sniff the charts, then we can re-evaluate, but at the very best this is WP:TOOSOON. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some longstanding disagreement going back a few years between the two primary contributors to this article. While I respect everybody's opinions and previous contributions, I simply see no justification for the deletion of this article at this time, especially with regards to other record labels of way lesser note which have had their articles remain intact, with the goal of improving upon said articles. This record label clearly passes the smell test for both notability and credibility in today's music industry, as both the article's references and a quick web search reaffirm. You do make some interesting points 78.26, and I respect your passion about this article's subject matter, but nevertheless I must again disagree with you about your proposed deletion of this article, be it due to WP:TOOSOON or otherwise. I think Music2015's update was justified and the article should remain, albeit with further improvements as time goes by. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I simply do not see anything new at all which has changed in the interim to sway my opinion from the previous AfD discussion above. I do agree with the editor who "stubbed" this article (again) recently though, as this article is the perfect Record Label Stub type article in my opinion while more notable information and reliable sources get added to it over time. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your second vote. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the general notability guideline. Keep voters' arguments are a mix of "other stuff exists" and pointing at nonexistent "clear credible media sources". Note to closer: IPs have not edited outside this AfD and 68.202.197.64 has !voted twice. Tera TIX 01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:GNG fail. Last AfD was a redirect, no issue if that's the ultimate decision here. SportingFlyer talk 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Zero coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP as a business. No redirect, as it will just get recreated, unless protection is applied. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cheiron Studios. Not creating a redirect that would be useful for the sole reason of "might be recreated" is not a good reason not to have the redirect; that's what protection is for.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Clearly fails WP:GNG and the only thing that can be done with the article is to give a redirect to Cheiron Studios.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the re-direct, and that was it's state before the article was re-created, yet again. The re-direct is useful. Repeated re-creation of this unrelated, non-notable label is not. The re-direct needs to be protected so that only extended-confirmed can edit, and I would do so except I am obviously very INVOLVED. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article does not fail WP:GNG and the label is clearly notable in today's music industry as evidenced by its reputable sources, so at worst this article should be kept as a record label stub and added to as time goes by. I would stub it myself, but obviously I too am "very involved", so I will wait for another editor to do so. Re-directing this article to Cheiron Studios is definitely not appropriate. --Music2015 (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your second vote. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~ Article’s references are both current and reputable enough to establish clear notability. 68.202.197.64 (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted keep above, so I have struck your third vote. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete, therefore default keep. A merge is possible, but this can be solved outside AfD. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Heritage Round[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The event itself, which lasted for six years during the 2000s decade, attracted nothing other than WP:ROUTINE coverage from sportswriters at the time. The only source given on this page is an enthusiast's site which documents images of VFL/AFL club guernseys. Conclusion can be drawn that this was never truly a notable event. Aspirex (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG in period sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the then upcoming heritage round, and the other two are nostalgia articles which happen to mention Heritage Round's existence but which give no actual coverage of the event itself. These do not do enough to satisfy GNG for this topic. Aspirex (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are feature articles about an upcoming event; I strongly disagree with you they're routine sources, and will try to fix the article up. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are more references available, even if some of them are not the best ones. There is sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. First thought was to merge with Australian Football League or similar but there is sufficient content and due weight for a split if it was there so keep as a separate article. Aoziwe (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep more merge with the individual seasons aka 2003 AFL season, 2004 AFL season which have sections for each round anyway. I think a soft redirect with statement on what the heritage round concept was and linking back to each season it was played. Gnan garra 14:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the individual seasons, the heritage round results are already there in the 2003, 2004 season articles but with no prose. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wilbur Award[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This poetry award has an "entry fee is $25 per manuscript, and the award is $1000". Sounds like a vanity award to me, rather than something notable. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the very least a redirect/merge to a "Legacy" section of Richard Wilbur? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 23:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there seems to have been another award by the same name given in 1985 by the University of Missouri Press and the American Literary Translators Association for translating poetry.[8][9][10] I don't know about other years. StrayBolt (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Sandra Reyes for Nicanor Parra's Sermones y prédicas del Cristo de Elqui (Sermons and Teachings of the Christ of Elquí)

1986 Roger Greenwald and William Mishler for Paal-Helge Haugen's Stone Fences.[11] StrayBolt (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Google, Google Books, Google News and HighBeam Research all show that it is often cited and that it is in fact prestigious. Being published by this university is not trivial; it is an important prize and consequential recognition. The $25 fee merely keeps them from being inundated by nonserious applicants. There is only one award per year. Meets WP:GNG.
The statement that it "sounds like a vanity award" is simply untrue. The argument is WP:OR and a bare conclusion. It is a logical fallacy unrelated to WP:Notability. It ignores
:1. the credentials of the person who established the award William Baer, a professor at the University of Evansville who is recognized as a serious poet in his own right;
:2. the purpose and intent to honor the memory of the second U.S. Poet Laureate Richard Wilbur (who won two Pulitzer Prizes)^[1] and
:3. the institutional reputation and gravitas of The University of Evansville.
In effect you are impugning both their credentials and their eleemosynary and artistic intent. This is not a vanity press or a Commercial enterprise. Cf., Famous Poets Society.^[2] 7&6=thirteen (☎) 05:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Aizenman, Hannah (October 16, 2017). "Richard Wilbur in the New Yorker". The New Yorker.
^ Rivenburg, Roy (November 24, 2002). "There Once Was a Poet from L.A." Los Angeles Times.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that 15 of the 21 winners have their own articles is enough to convince me of notability. The fact that Amazon refer to it in the titles of entries like this, this and this is also persuasive. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not unlike the Hopwood Award at the University of Michigan, which included Arthur Miller among its recipients. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity awards are more likely to charge you $1000 to enter and to present you with $25 if you win. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would not use those reasons for notability. My award (which I just made up) has articles for ALL the winners, all of which are either Nobel, Pulitzer, or Publishing Clearing House winners. I think Amazon mentions the award in the title because it is the subtitle of the book. And now we should find some RSs for the Hopwood Award too. StrayBolt (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, once the award is established as notable, we can (probably) leave the red links assuming the winners are or will become notable. StrayBolt (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a misleading nomination, as an entry fee or prize money has nothing at all to do with notability. My bigger concern is I can't find anything reliable that's not a non-primary source (evansville.edu). The Amazon blurbs don't count, unfortunately - they're being used to sell the book. None of the articles linked mention the award anything other than in passing. "Poets and Writers" mentions Robert Crawford's win almost in passing, but perhaps there's text cut off? I'm probably a "weak delete" vote at the moment, but there's enough passing mentions of it around where I don't really care if it's kept, but I would love to see more reliable sources which significantly cover the award. SportingFlyer talk 13:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small poetry prize created by two exceedingly notable people. Cant see anything wrong with it. Poets live in the sticks, and that combined with the prestigious names attached to it, would suspect the prize would very be welcome. scope_creep (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research and the article is unsourced. There is no such thing as a second lady or second gentleman in the Philippines or at least there is no coverage of such by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of spouses of Vice Presidents of the Philippines; slighly more awkward but describes what this list article is about without a neologism. I doubt that a merge to List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines would be beneficial to that article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be the Vice President's equivalent of the First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines, an informal title referring to the host/hostess of the Malacanang Palace for presidential events which just happens to be the spouse of the incumbent president. Note that the vice president entry also includes a daughter of the current female vice president so the scope includes non-spouses. And the term may not event exist and just be a neologism to imitate the US equivalent when not even national Philippine media outlets has occasionally covered spouses of the Vice President.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify as this is totally unsourced but may actually exist as a term however unlikely this might seem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any notability. Rosario (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Please note that this article, under a prior name, was kept on 30 December 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Spouse of the Philippines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion had literally no keep arguments based on policy or guidelines. A summary of the comments is it's useful or "I don't have a problem with this article". --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Power~enwiki. While the individual entries in this list aren't original research, the title of the list is.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of incumbent Leni Robredo's daughter holding the role of "Second Lady" is unsupported by a reliable source. I don't think we can just ignore the fact that the article claims that her daughter is "second lady" and rename this article as "Second spouse" when the current VP's daughter is obviously not her spouse. If the consensus is to keep and rename this article. That part of this article definitely has to go.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think the bottom line here is there is no sourcing, and doesn't appear to be any forthcoming. Aside from notability not being inherited, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. Notability is also not inherited. If we look at it as a list of people, then WP:LISTBIO applies, which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Sourcing is the primary distinguishing characteristic, it seems, between the US version of the article and this one - the US version has a great deal of sourcing even though it is also problematic in it's own way. Waggie (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Mayhem[edit]

(Find video game sources: "WWE Mayhem" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD (no reason given). Original concern: "Non-notable iOS game. Apart from a Touch arcade article, seems to have no coverage." Upon review, concurring: non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS. The only vetted source is the TouchArcade review. All other hits appear to be run-of-the-mill blogs and app aggregators. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Further to my original PROD. Non-notable. Only one notable source, in Touch Arcade. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redirect To WWE Games, I think you can have a paragraph on mobile games there. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good redirect target. But there is nothing to merge, since the only reliable source is not even used in the article. Also note that I MOVEREQed that page, as its title is afoul of MOS:VG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable game, lack of reliable references. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Considering it barely passes WP:GNG. Borderline case, but guess it will work. Withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcover Mysteries (TV series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable show that clearly fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and supported by WP:TVSERIES for absence of reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one is very borderline. I've found one source, THR, that may contribute to notability, though only marginally. I've added a second source to the article, but it's basically a WP:PRIMARY press release which doesn't contribute to establishing notability at all. The existing NY Post source in the article does contribute to notability, as a full-fledged review. But, all in all, this probably isn't enough – if more secondary sources can't be found, this one probably doesn't quite cut it in notability terms. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources to establish notability per GNG -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paint-by-numbers ID show, but just brushes the edge of GNG enough to stay as a separate article. Nate • (chatter) 14:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Stepmothers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable show that clearly fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and supported by WP:TVSERIES for absence of reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Investigation Discovery#Current programming Not much expansion hope outside of an episode list, the title is a WYSIWYG case of 'that's definitely an Investigation Discovery show' which would be more than plausible. Nate • (chatter) 15:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (English actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. A brief career as a child actor in minor roles and the only attributions are to IMDb. CallyMc (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article and imdb indicate he hasn't acted much. Szzuk (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Klebingat[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. This source found in a search provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are necessary, not just one. Various WP:BEFORE searches have only provided name checks and minor passing mentions in usable sources, and the article itself is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet notability requirements. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second Class Citizens[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable unreleased film. Slight, but ultimately not significant, media coverage of the three released promos. Catrìona (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NFILM as an unmade project with minor coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFILM. Even cinephiles like humble me cannot ignore that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information. For the cinema's periphery, one should and could look beyond an encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Zay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and being all-conference in college does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Routine coverage and only 7 games in the AHL. Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Garnier[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the sourcing (in the article and in a search) is of too poor quality to sustain GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made an effort to fix some of the dead links, but found that the mentions of Garnier in the cited sources are very limited; mostly single sentences. That is not significant critical attention or significant coverage. I have not found any additional meaningful coverage in a search. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a well set out informative article with plenty of references, but Garnier does not meet any of the people notability requirements eg. although she has exhibited in a number of galleries/locations they and/or the exhibitions are not significant/wikinotable (ie. no article (yet?:))), there are some reviews in notable publications but again this may not be enough, have been unable to find any of her work in the collections of notable galleries/museums, could we have a redirect to say "Contemporary artists" subsection of Art in modern Scotland with a few words there?, i would feel uncomfortable to do so, unfortunately this is a delete from me (hopefully this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and we will see an article in the future when her work is picked up by some major/notable galleries). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly needs updating - it states that her most recent solo exhibition at the Lime Tree Gallery was in 2012. The artist's website states that she has held 5 solo exhibitions since then. She is not in Scotland any longer, but lives in Norfolk, so a redirect to Art in modern Scotland would not really work. May be worth looking for reviews of those exhibitions, perhaps. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as WP:TOOSOON. the page has very little, although there was an accolade in the 2003 Scotsman article for her work in the art school graduation show. lacks profiles and museum shows. The other thing I am seeing is some praise for her work on group and gallery shows the Eastern Daily Press, Norwich, so it's local. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The "keep" arguments that sufficient sources do exist to sustain and appropriately write this article were not refuted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Brouillard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So the question is this; is someone who has been accused, but never convicted of serious offences actually notable? My thoughts are that this should be merged to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Guam, but delete & redirect might also be a valid outcome. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I am still waiting for some resolution on the subject of WP:BLPCRIME as he died after admitting to crimes he was never convicted of and it isn't even clear if the subject should be covered here at all. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be a place to mention Brouillard in a larger article, but a stand alone article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Guam. But as he was never charged so never convicted the target needs updating and sourcing as it incorrectly states that he was "charged for having raped altar boys". The article may need copyediting as the aforementioned phrase poses a problem as there is a clear presumption of guilt in the phrasing. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not comfortable with an article that covers allegations remaining on Wiki without adjudication, even with the subject now deceased. I also believe it should not be merged and placed on another Wiki page with mention of the allegation. Once the charge has an outcome, I will take another look. Otherwise, I believe it should be deleted, not merged, until there is a finality to the allegations. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National level coverage of the allegations.[12][13][14][15][16]. National level coverage of his death (obit level coverage) - AP, USA Today. As for these being merely "allegations" - beyond his relocation from Guam, Brouillard has admitted his role,[17] and has signed an affidavit admitted 20 or more cases.[18] Given the admission by the subject himself, the lack of criminal justice (due to statute of limitations(?) and his being deceased) is not an issue. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME warns us about including information about accusations of crimes for which the person was not convicted. Confessions are not convictions. History is full of people acquitted of crimes they did not commit but who had signed confessions to these crimes, this can be for a multitude of reasons: police pressure or torture, misplaced guilt, psychological problems, to protect the real authors etc etc. I am not a lawyer but I presume that despite the confession there would have been a trial had the statute of limitations not have prevented it and the court would have examined the confession and its circumstances to see if it was admissable or not. This is all part of due process and necessary to convict. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per national coverage. Per WP:GNG. Editor Icewhiz points out several good reasons for Keeping this article which I agree to fully as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ultimately the subject is well covered in reliable sources, and any issues with how to present the crime aspect can be dealt with without deleting the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of subject verifiably meeting WP:NPERSON and WP:CRIMINAL. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just as a reminder to the keep !Voter's WP:BLPCRIME covers the recently deceased and unless convicted we should not be creating articles that cover the accusations. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surge activism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear WP:NORG failure. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage - the Miami one simply name-drops them, there's brief coverage of a petition they launched, the other sources are WP:PRIMARY or don't mention the organisation at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up nothing I could see that would help it get over the tough WP:NORG hurdle. SportingFlyer talk 06:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surge is an international grassroots animal rights organization. There are marches and events around the world associated with this organization. It is notable. Steven02511 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say it's notable, but do you have any reliable sources unrelated to the organisation which significantly covers the organisation? SportingFlyer talk 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not for notability, then for being irretrievably promotional and partisan. SpinningSpark 19:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to see it as notable, and I agree, but you feel the article is still "irretrievably promotional and partisan." I agree that originally it was so, but after deleting the copyvio part, it is in better shape. As editors, we have the power to reshape it because nothing that deserves WP's attention should be "irretrievable." Whatever is left that may read as "promotional and partisan" can still be "clean out," if you help identify the culprits. This course of actions would show that we are not ourselves lazy or partisan for trying to delete rather than improve an article about what seems as a clearly notable (or notorious) organization with significant enough coverage. Den... (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I'm far from convinced that it is notable. Organising a few small demos and getting in the news is WP:NOTNEWS. Where is the in-depth discussion of the organisation itself as required by WP:NORG? SpinningSpark 17:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO for non notable org. No SIGCOV found. fails WP:ORG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As explained in Winters' AfD (concerted delete efforts do not mean concerted keep effort.), the evidence for notability are clear. To rehash a few: The Daily Telegraph: here, here, and here. The Guardian: here. The Huffingtonpost: here. Evening Standard: here, here and here. Montreal Times: here. Den... (talk) 06:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen almost all of those sources (one or two are behind paywalls), and none of those sources come close to passing WP:NORG. SportingFlyer talk 07:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply the guidelines criteria in the table here, and expand on the samples of three sources, this is what we have:

1- Multiple coverage: check ✅ 10 major newspapers

2- Independent coverage: check ✅ All of them

3- Significant coverage: check ✅

Three Samples:

a. Telegraph:

i. Mentioned 3 times

ii. Takes up about a third of the entire news

iii. organization with the most responsibility, more coverage than PETA

b. Guardian (same news event)

i. Mentioned once

ii. A paragraph of coverage

iii. But it is the main catalyst of the event:

“Ed Winters, the co-director of Surge, which orchestrated anti-fur demonstrations that attracted more than 250 people in September, a rise from 120 the previous catwalk season and 25 in September 2016, said “we expect those numbers to continually rise””

c. Huffington Post

i. Mentioned twice

ii. Takes more than half of the news

iii. The news is all about the event that the group organized

4- Reliable sources: check ✅

5- Secondary sources: check ✅

For me, it is obvious that they pass each of the checkpoints in WP:ORG. Den... (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, this ORG sponsored a anti-fur protest march that drew 250 protestors and was part of a brief newscycle about London Fashion week. Fails WP:ORG.

Delete due to no SIGCOV. Promotional page! XavierItzm (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sooner, the better. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:ORG. The article's creator seeems passionate about animal rights, which many might find commendable in itself, but Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Historical materialism. Consensus as an unwarranted duplication of another article, with poorer quality and sourcing. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's theory of history[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per my comments on Talk:Marx's theory of history, I've marked this page for deletion as it is almost entirely devoid of citations, and the historical materialism page (which covers the same topic) is clearly superior. Having two pages discussing Marx's theory of the materialist conception of history is redundant and confusing; I am speaking from experience as someone with approximately two years of studying Marxism under my belt - these two pages confused the hell out of me when I set out to learn. The concepts covered here are already covered (with proper citations) in mode of production. Time for this page to go where it belongs: the dustbin of history. RnRa76 (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So what is the objection to this becoming a redirect? It seems like a likely search term to me. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Historical materialism as they do appear to be the same thing. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for Karl Marx says "Historical materialism — Marx’s theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is one of many pages about Marxism and was created as a large spinout from that main page in 2007. The topic is obviously very notable and any further development should be done using ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The claim that this material was split from the Marxism article, lacking the nuance placed on such a claim by the adverb "inappropriately", is somewhat misleading. Any material that could have been merged into Historical materialism should have been done so in 2007, rather than splitting an article off into a content fork. The HM page dates back to at least June 2001[19] (which apparently was in the days when Wikipedia was more lax about preserving page histories, as the main Marxism article was apparently "created" four months later by an edit that removed several tens of thousands of bytes from the page[20]). If anything is worth merging, no harm will be done by preserving it in the page history.
Redirect I am more than happy with a redirect instead of outright deletion. RnRa76 (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Historical materialism without deleting the history in case it is ever useful. I commented above. Suggest redirect not to be undone without consensus at Talk:Historical materialism. Thincat (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Robertson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple count looks like three events to me. Aoziwe (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still a non-notable beauty pageant contestant, no matter how many events you count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Australia, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Is not just known for one pageant. BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per North America. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BabbaQ.-Richie Campbell (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 01:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Ekman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Purely promotional and nothing notable. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple significant mentions in WP:RS. Here are some:[21] [22] [23] [24]. [25]. It's overly promotional and the English needs work, but that's fixable and quality problems like that have never been a valid reason for deletion. Sjö (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or indeed speedy keep (Zackmann08, I see where you're coming from, but this could perhaps be withdrawn). He is indubitably fully notable, despite the appalling state of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy keep (Zackmann08, He is a notable as many references are added, I tried to fix some issues. You can also fix English or styling issues, instead of nominating it for deletion remove the specific points which looks like a promotional contents. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers. Agony77 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and close. This one covers WP:GNG per good references.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Zackmann08 (talk · contribs), a minute before nominating this for deletion, you removed a long list of his productions for a large number of national ballets and other leading dance companies. Whether you like the way the list looked or not, it should have given you a clue; you can't have a resumé like that and not be notable as a choreographer. --Hegvald (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Speedy keep. Someone remove the deletion tag. Now it must be closed. He is notable and we have seen there are enough references to prove the validity of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alina Zahra (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While the discussion is open, the deletion notice shouldn't be removed (removal would hide this discussion for anybody looking up Ekman's article), and the discussion will be closed by an administrator in due time. --Hegvald (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Icehouse pieces. Nominator has indicated they'll perform the merge themselves. (non-admin closure) —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IceTowers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has existed for over a decade and has attracted no references at all so far. Google News turned up only one inadequate hit, Google Books showed nothing relevant for this topic. No awards won, no evidence of subject-specific notability. Maybe it is time to let this one go as not notable? A loose noose (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:There are external links. Maybe that could be used as citations?--Boothsift (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There are three external links. Unfortunately, two of them lack independence from the subject, and the third is simply a description of the game from a website that covers all board games (i.e., WP:ROUTINE coverage, not special coverage, not enough, I don't think, to qualify for notability). If this game were notable, it should be written up in some books or newspapers somewhere. Its mere existence does not by itself make it notable. A loose noose (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (with appropriate trimming) to Icehouse pieces. This is a major instance of a game played with said pieces, but is only relevant in the context of the prices themselves (which are independently Notable). Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Looney Labs. BOZ (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Newimpartial. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A merge seems fine to me. I withdraw the deletion nomination, and will perform the merge myself, if that is alright with everyone. A loose noose (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but I really think the merge target should be Icehouse pieces and not Looney labs. I am generally loathe to merge games to companies where other appropriate targets exists. Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to "Icehouse pieces" whatever text merits space in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MyUniverse[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability. Just a product of Aditya Birla Group No independent source to demonstrate notability. Should be redirected to Aditya Birla Group. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any sources to suggest notability, and current article is mostly promotional. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this SPA-created, toxically promotional text masquerading as an ecyclopaedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War Eagle Trail Running Festival[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was covered on 5-News [26]. SpinningSpark 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Many editors continue to confuse notability in general, i.e. in the 'real' world, and what accounts for notability in Wikipedia, sometimes called 'Wikinotability'. The contested subject might possess the former but does not possess the latter, which decides the issue. We have no referenced sources. -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford O'Connell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity page created by SPAs (possible COI) - references are all primary sources or brief mentions. A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything to show meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not enough to be a political pundit and columnist; there must be significant coverage of the subject. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete widely quoted, lots of hits in searches on his name, but not finding WP:SIGCOV and sources on the page are mostly primary and fall far short of SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Rao (actress)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable actress (when clearly distinguished from the film director, who is another person with the same name). Google search reveals that she exists; we knew that. It also shows a lot of non-independent vanity hits; we expected them. Could not find any independent in-depth coverage. (The coverage that appears to be in-depth coverage of her is actually in-depth coverage of the director, who is someone else.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, stating that we "expected" the vanity hits verges on bias, or at least lack of neutrality. Just a small note for future consideration, perhaps. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not.meeting WP:NACTOR article created by a possible sock of User:Arnav19. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 16:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Ataeva[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Russian painter now living in Houston. A general search turned up no RS. The article contains at most one independent source. Other existing article sources are Saatchi online (wiki), gallery pages and bio listings. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of WP:RS. Like the nominator, I could not find any, but would be willing to reconsider if such coverage is available. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of lack of sources supporting WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yongbei Tang[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She is a political candidate for a local election who has never held political office and despite the local controversy she does not appear to be otherwise notable Grahame (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor, local government, never yet elected politician. Not yet notable. Single event controversy, not isolated, to her. Perhaps as best WP:TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.She is just a political candidate and has not made any revolutionary step to be notable in the field of politics so clearly fails WP:NPOL and the lack of reliable independent sources fails the notabilityWP:GNG.Vinodbasker (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a city council candidate is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, and any controversy about her outside affiliations just makes her a WP:BLP1E no matter how widely it gets covered. And there's no serious claim to preexisting notability as a journalist, either, since other than the "background mentions of her prior career" in the campaign coverage (which is not how you make a person's prior career notable enough to override their lack of notability as a politician), the only other source for her journalism career is a piece in which she's the bylined author and not the subject of the coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of WWE SmackDown special episodes. The people arguing to keep failed to give any policy-based reasons. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WWE SmackDown 1000[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing notable about this event and nothing notable happened. I see nothing to believe this event was more WP:LASTING than any other episode of SmackDown. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of WWE SmackDown special episodes, there doesn't seem to be any independent sources, however sounds like a valid search term. Govvy (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This episode is to celebrate 1000 episodes of the Second longest episodic tv show in US tv history.. I feel that this should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.163.13 (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is easily a one-sentence mention in List of WWE SmackDown special episodes, which it indeed already has. Nate • (chatter) 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs improvement. The show itself is notable, as was the case with WWE Raw 1000. The 1000th episode is a big deal in terms of WWE history with both of their flagship shows reaching the monumental number. MarioFan78 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article.this article needs improvement , SmackDown 1000 is a 2nd most running episode in History.(Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]
Delete/Redirect to List of WWE SmackDown special episodes. I continue to believe that WWE Raw 1000 wasn't notable either. That both shows made it to 1000 episodes is certainly a milestone but that can fit into a few sentences on the main articles. WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of WWE SmackDown special episodes. Subject does not possess independent notability as evidenced by the lack of references offered by Keep suggestions to support their position. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maudie Wilson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. Also, in reference to the artilce stating She was succeeded as New Zealand's oldest person by 109-year-old Peg Griffin. "oldest person in country X" is not a position or title with predecessors and successors, it's just random trivia. — JFG ^talk 00:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is just standard obituary info (born, married, had kids, spouse died, she died, number of offspring). Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL, which is what this article is acting as. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her because she was not notable. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable supercentenarian. Fails WP:GNG, a GRG table that doesn't mention her and three routine obituaries that only tell us the bare life basics (born, got married, had kids, died) does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB apply here too. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all three delete votes above, nothing new to add. SportingFlyer talk 02:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Thérèse Bardet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples ages or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, and the remarkable fact that she was born and later died. There is almost nothing said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. There is nothing of interest in this article that isn't easily handled on a list. The only information that isn't on a list is that she was born to a single mother and had children and grandchildren. Also fails WP:GNG as sources are either local news articles or obituaries (the GRG link doesn't mention her at all) that only repeat "born, oldest in country/Europe, had kids and grandkids and died". CommanderLinx (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some list. Utterly empty and worthless. E Eng 23:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delphine Gibson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples ages or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with the standard fluff added in (married, had kids, longevity secret, died). There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Half the article is the fluffy trivia about her predecessor and successor and that someone else was older but living in another country. Other than that, the sources can only tell us she was born, she got married, she had kids and then she died. Nothing of interest that isn't already on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaving on lists as usual. It's amazing that people spent their time scattering these worthless nothing "articles" all over creation. E Eng 23:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of French supercentenarians. Tone 22:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eugénie Blanchard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it very disappointing that more people are supporting the idea that being notable for longevity alone doesn't mean they get a Wikipedia article. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: all the information relevant to this person's age (the only notable thing about her) is already included in various lists of oldest people. We can simply redirect her name to List of French supercentenarians. If any biographical trivia is deemed useful, she can have a short section there. — JFG ^talk 05:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any policy/guideline based reasoning for keeping this article? Because nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say "longevity makes you notable". And the fact that most of these WP:PERMASTUBs cannot be expanded beyond "born, married, had kids, worked, died" means they should be on lists. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her nickname added in. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Per nom. The sources strain to pad this article with fluffy trivia (3rd oldest X, oldest Y, successor/predecessor) and there's an entire paragraph about a nickname she had. Other than that the sources and article tell us she was born, became a nun, became oldest in country/world, died. Nothing that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. Three of the five sources no longer work and the remaining two are both local news articles so fails WP:GNG. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete longevity does not make one notable. Fails WP:GNG, coverage is routine and WP:NOTNEWS. (A "WP:BDP1E"?) SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well it actually does. They are celebrated, sometimes venerated and studied to a certain extant, typically their diet to emulate them. They need some details, as they are so far outside the normal spectrum of living, possibly a list page. scope_creep (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's already in a list. She's not notable enough for her own article. SportingFlyer talk 23:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect because alternatives to deletion are preferred. In this case a redirect could serve readers. The problem is that there are several plausible options to redirect, List of the verified oldest women, List of French supercentenarians, List of the verified oldest people, List of former Roman Catholic nuns. Keep as a result to avoid confusion. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy. List of former Roman Catholic nuns is for notable nuns; this subject is not. List of verified oldest people and List of the verified oldest women are giant and nonspecific. The redirect would be to List of French supercentenarians. E Eng 23:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I second and third this astute remark: must target the fries! — JFG ^talk 02:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / redirect to list per NOPAGE. E Eng 23:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The World's Oldest Living Person is notable. Into the Rift (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No longevity AfD is complete without someone who hasn't edited in 4 years showing up to inject this completely baseless statement. E Eng 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus that GEOLAND applies (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mansurchak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability and no sources beyond government census documents. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, legally populated places are notable, this one even has its own census sub-block as a minor "regional center". Does need better sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scope_creep (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — The very first criterion of WP:GEOLAND mandates that legally recognised and populated places are generally considered inherently notable. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Clear consensus that GEOLAND is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nayatol[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources in the article beyond Wikivillage, no indication of notability, and a search reveals no sources that could be used to expand the article. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legally designated populated place per WP:GEOLAND and the Indian census [27], needs cleanup, not deletion. SportingFlyer talk 06:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 16:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a place. scope_creep (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — Per the very first criterion of WP:GEOLAND, in that, Nayatol is legally recognised and populated village. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC); edited 13:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.