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} 02:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honsbridge International School[edit]

Honsbridge International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional piece not based on secondary sources. I failed to find anything I'd call reliable, but what I did find indicates that this is not a "school" (and it carefully avoids calling itself one on its website) but a "tuition centre", a difference that may well be relevant to the amount of government approval or oversight (see The Star for an explanation of the difference and the surrounding issues). Without any reliable sources we cannot have an article; with reliable sources we'd still have to rewrite the page in its entirety, starting with the title. There's nothing salvageable here. Huon (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep we don't usually delete secondary schools amd this is a well established decently sized school. I don't see this page as promotional - it appears factual and plausable. Are you searching for sources in Malay? There is a lot of promo crap on bands and pageant winners that can be targeted for deletion that is a loss less pressing than deleting a school. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "this is a well established decently sized school" - Legacypac, evidence, please? As I said above, it doesn't call itself a school, and I don't think it is one. Regarding "promotional", all without sources:
  • "one of the largest private co-educational schools in Malaysia",
  • "the only international school in Malaysia that offers the Express / Fast-Track IGCSE Cambridge O-Level education and examinations" (particularly the "examinations" I'd like to see confirmed),
  • "Students who opt for this option, can complete their Year 7 to Year 11 in less than 4 years instead of the normal 5 years route",
  • "provides an international, British-based curriculum",
  • "taught by specialized teachers",
  • "The school employs over 80% of local teachers, and 20% expatriates, mostly originating from Britain" (if there are over 80% locals there cannot be 20% expatriates),
  • "large teaching staff",
  • "Apart from academic excellence, Honsbridge International has a proud sporting tradition",
  • "many other sport activities with the school"

If you wanted to write an advertisement for a school (or something that is school-like), how would that sound any different from the above? You're welcome to nominate other articles for deletion that you think don't belong; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seek deletion of pages all the time. I don't seek deletion of schools. This is clearly a school. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Here is a source (of dubious reliability) that includes Honsbride International in a list of tuition centres. An older version of their website calls Honsbridge "an independent learning establishment to coach students to score in their Cambridge IGCSE/O level" and promises that "you will have the best possible preparation for your examinations" (but apparently not the examinations themselves). Their current website says they "aspire to provide quality and affordable IGCSE/O levels tuitions". And if all of that is not enough, look at them (as of October 2017). "PUSAT TUISYEN" doesn't mean "school". So unless you have some reliable sources that actually say it's a school, we're not discussing the deletion of a school here, but of a page that falsely calls a tuition centre a school. Huon (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Interestingly, there is a new e-mail at OTRS 2018101510003711, which claims "Wikipedia is the only site that calls this organization a school - They are NOT a school approved by Ministry of Education." I'll suggest they comment here. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this will be easily settled by citing a reliable third party source. Failing that, delete. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find any independent published sources. This blogpost says it is one of several "independent learning centres ... These centres tutor children and prepare them for popular examination options ... The academy behaves in many re­spects just like a typical school". Honsbridge does appear to be very like a school (classes, field trips, sports) but as Huon says, it doesn't call itself one, presumably isn't registered or inspected as one, and there just is no coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a learning center and not a regular school, needs to follow WP:ORGCRIT, which it doesn't. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable educational business of some sort, not really a secondary school OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:33, 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} 02:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

F. Burton Howard[edit]

F. Burton Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. The 2007 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac source listed in the article presumably provides some coverage, but there's no link to readily assess the depth of coverage. Importantly, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint, fleeting minor mentions in independent reliable sources. Other than the almanac source, the remaining sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG lack of independent reliable sources covering the subject in great detail.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable, 3 refs in the article which fail WP:V, google not showing anything better. Szzuk (talk) 15:01, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lion (manhwa)[edit]

Red Lion (manhwa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no notability for this and the author doesn't have an article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing but a plot dump. I can't find evidence of notability, but it's possible that sources aren't plentiful in English. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, created by a spa in 2010 and then forgotten, no refs in the article, google showing little, news nothing. Szzuk (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no references, no evidence of notability. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:21, 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 and redirect to Facing New York. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get Hot[edit]

Get Hot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no charting information, or otherwise significant coverage among several independent reliable sources. The band who recorded the album aren't even notable for a biography article.

WP:NALBUMS states "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography", and that is clearly the case here except there's no article this could be merged to since it isn't even by a notable band. NØ 17:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the album is independently notable with reviews in reliable sources such as Absolute Punk and the AV Club already referenced in the article which also suggests that the band is in fact notable and should have an article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Absolute Punk link is dead and there appears to be no archive, so this review cannot be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that leaves the AV Club as the only reliable source available, and its simply impossible to expand this article beyond a stub based on just one source without highly paraphrasing it.--NØ 00:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In addition to AV Club, here is one more review that I found: [1]. Regardless, I don't think those are enough when the notability of the band itself is suspect. Speedy Delete rule WP:A9 requires both an article for the band and indications that the album is notable, and while there is some minor evidence of notability for this album, the Speedy Delete rule's existence implies that in most cases there should be a band article first. Also the album article is nearly an orphan without a band article to connect it to, and Wikipedia tries to fix orphans too. (See also the article for the band's previous album, which has been PROD'ded.) I propose that any interested person create an article on the band and see if it survives the notability question. Until then, an album article is pointless. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The band's article was deleted in November 2017 due to lack of notability. Nothing has changed since then that would make them notable. I think these two album articles would have been deleted then too but they slipped under the admin's radar.--NØ 19:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I forgot to check for past attempts at a band article, and you are surely correct that they have not progressed in notability since that last try. Both albums should absolutely be deleted for this reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article about the band's other album has been deleted. So now this article is an orphan with no articles linking to it. And it only cites one reliable source. We frankly don't even need a discussion about deleting this, the person who removed my PROD nomination of this article twice and is the only keep vote here is probably a member of or closely linked to the band.--NØ 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge. I don't think the band article should have been speedy deleted as an A7, as the tours were enough for some claim of significance, and a Google search finds enough coverage to make the band at least borderline notable. I'm not convinced there's enough coverage to justify an article on this album, but the band article should be revived, improved, and this should be merged there. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC) Facing New York now exists, a redirect there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This vote assumes that someone cares enough to create a new and improved article for the band. When/if that happens, there would be a place to merge this album to. Until then, I don't think the album's few reviews are strong enough to overcome its current orphan-hood. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the revived band article can stand on its own, we should simply redirect the album under discussion to there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:14, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva Water Hub[edit]

Geneva Water Hub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure promotion of their activities. The references mostly are either from them, or are general treatments of the problems they hope to solve. Material emphasising how important the need is for the work of a charity or foundation is how they raise money, not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been significantly modified and shortened to remove promotional material and provide clearer referencing for existing achievements rather than future aims. Further clarity has been given the promotion of their identity as an academic institution rather than the misinterpreted suggestion of charity or foundation --Trennez (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This appears to be a small project of 4 universities, not a general international producject.The largest section, section 1.1, still talks about general importance of the problem, rather than the organization. The references for the other material are either PR or mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 16 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} 02:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margareth Angelina[edit]

Margareth Angelina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician, article reads like a press release. I could only find tabloid sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 13:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One member of a large musical group with, apparently, lots of turnover in its ranks. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, plainly fails WP:MUSICBIO. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons cited by PohranicniStraze RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:08, 30 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 awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Li Yuchun[edit]

List of awards received by Li Yuchun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Topic much better covered by the article List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. An unneeded content fork of an already existing article that covers the topic in more detail. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On looking at the article history, it appears that this is actually the older article and the proposed target is the original content fork, so I am striking my vote. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of awards and nominations received by Li Yuchun. More comprehensive article and removes unneeded content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:57, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Actually[edit]

Lunch Actually (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Christina Thung, the author of the current version has requested a face-to-face meeting with me about this so I thought I would let her see a few more people's opinions. It does seem to have a number of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CSD criteria that it was deleted under applies because the article would need to be entirely rewritten to be an appropriate article. As written, it is a puff piece likely written by someone who will benefit financially from the increased exposure provided by Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional piece, notability not established besides general commentary on company. Previous speedy delete criteria still applied. Also, Christina Thung, based on username, likely to be directly employed by Lunch Actually. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete still strikes me as A7/G11 material, just as it did in 2016. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghushmeshwar, Rajasthan[edit]

Ghushmeshwar, Rajasthan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a jyotirlinga, actually the 12th jyotirlinga is Grishneshwar, which is in Daulatabad, Maharashtra (1, 2). This is clearly a promotional article created by temple staff to promote the temple and lure the people. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails notability, clearly an imposter of Grishneshwar [2]. Based on the coverage [3] [4] in the regional newspapers, this temple only merits a mention in Sawai Madhopur district. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination, this temple is not a Jyotirlinga.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 12:05, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Chemicals[edit]

Sincerely, Chemicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self promotional spam for Non notable initiative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has multiple sources but half are ref bombed Fictitious references that do not support the quote they are connected to. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence it is notable, none of the cited references even mention the initiative. Google search turns up a little bit of local news/routine coverage but nothing that constitutes notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find significant coverage in independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 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} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean M. Davies[edit]

Dean M. Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches provide no independent, significant biographical coverage, just quotations from the subject about religious beliefs ([5]), quotations from the subject acting as a spokesperson ([6]) fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand by my 2014 statement at AFD1 "Weak delete I liken this to a professor with no mentions in the press other than websites from his own university. We need to know that he is considered a ntable person to the general public."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep there are more than a few references to his actions in this role, though most are fairly minor: [7] [8]. The various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article. I think the role is prominent enough to justify a keep with this coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. power~enwiki's links have given me pause. I am leaning toward weak keep. But not sure yet. Den... (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Below is a source analysis of the articles posted by power~enwiki above.

Source	Analysis
[9]	Consists of a name check and then all quotations from the subject, acting as a spokesperson. Being just about all quotations makes this a primary source, which does not establish notability. Furthermore, this article provides just about no biographical information about the subject.
[10]	An article about the subject attending an event and acting as a spokesperson, consisting mostly of quotations, making it primary in nature. This also provides basically no biographical information about the subject, and is just minor routine coverage about an event, rather than the subject.

A subject's role in a religious organization does not create presumed notability, because there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. What is needed is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Passing mentions and name checks are not significant coverage, and articles consisting mostly of quotations are primary sources. Furthermore, regarding the notion above of "the various primary sources are sufficient to write a short article", this is entirely backwards, because to qualify for an article, notability per Wikipedia's standards needs to exist, then an article should be created, rather than vice versa. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per Northamerica. Convincing source analysis. Den... (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NA1000. Spam LDS. Refs have been analysed convincingly. Szzuk (talk) 20:44, 30 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} 02:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Monkey[edit]

Crazy Monkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I remember this show, it was kind of made notable at the time because of Brett Goldin murder. If people feel this article isn't needed maybe a redirect to Brett Goldin's article. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not merit the independent article. Looking at the references, first is a primary one, and the third is not connected to the subject but to Brett Goldin instead (and WP:NOTINHERITED stands so Brett cannot make this notable by his death), none of which establish notability. I have cleaned up the blog reference that was used and IMDB one (not a reliable secondary source). Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No credible sources at all. Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:58, 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 no consensus. Of note is that the article was rewritten and significantly expanded (around 27x compared to its state at the time of the deletion nomination), which included the addition of many sources (diff). Some, but not much analysis of the subject's notability relative to the added sources has occurred herein after the rewrite. After two full reslitings, ultimately no consensus for a particular outcome exists at this time in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Spring[edit]

Sylvia Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a film director, which literally just states that she exists and then filmographies her films without even attempting to make or source a claim that she passes WP:NCREATIVE for any of them. And all that's present for sourcing here is a deadlinked page on a defunct website whose content is impossible to verify at all, and the IMDb page for one of her films. As always, every filmmaker is not automatically entitled to have an article just because one or more of her films have IMDb entries -- a filmmaker needs to have a credible claim of notability that would pass NCREATIVE, and needs to have reliable source coverage about her to support an article. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I previously nominated for PROD, as the article makes no claim that would justify notability (and isn't borne out by sources). The one potential argument for notability as far as I can see is that the subject reportedly has an entry in a film encyclopedia, although the page is currently broken [11], and its unclear whether this encyclopedia provides sufficient coverage of its entries to justify creating an article here purely on the basis of the existence of the entry. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is information on the filmmaker - [12][13], apparently she is the first female Canadian director to make an English language feature film in Canada, and one of her films won some minor awards. I'd guess that might be what she would be notable for, although I haven't decided yet if that is sufficient. Hzh (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The broken link to Canadian film encyclopedia is archived - [14], there is also something on her work and bio at Library and Archives Canada [15]. Here there are some references to reviews and articles on one of her films - [16], her work is also revisited in this 2002 issue of Take One.Hzh (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably marginal notability, but according to the sources given above, her works have been given serious critical attention (her 1970 work Madeleine Is… received reviews and was still discussed in 2002), therefore she may qualify under WP:CREATIVE. Apart from being the first Canadian woman to make an English feature film in Canada, she was also appointed by the Canadian government to scrutinize "Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Broadcast Media" and set up Media Watch, therefore she may have some significance in Canadian feminist history. With the sources given and those not archived on the internet, she should qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I read the profile from the archived profile from TIFF, but I don't think there's enough there to say she passes WP:GNG. She might be revered among Canadian cinephiles, but I don't believe she meets Wikipedia's guidelines. PKT(alk) 16:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From the sources identified by Hzh and other sources found on Jstor and Google Scholar: The subject of this profile wrote and directed a film which was shown internationally, and is still being discussed 40 years after it was made. She also won awards for a documentary and for a series made for schools. Her work on the task force on Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Broadcast Media is quoted in articles about Canadian policy and also internationally (eg in Australia), and starting Media Watch in Canada is significant. I am not aware of Wikipedia criteria for notability for activists, but I believe that she is notable. The "article" is not even a stub, so deleting it or keeping it hardly matters - I have started adding more information and references, but as it amounts to starting a new article, I have copied this to my sandbox. I'll paste it back here as soon as it has any substance. If someone else works on this article here, I can just add in anything else I have. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Agree with with RebeccaGreen and Hzh. I have expanded the article a nodge resulting in a situation where some of the delete statements above no longer hold water. Spring meets WP:BASIC, WP:FILMMAKER #1 and WP:ANYBIO #2. gidonb (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have written a new article, which I believe substantiates this subject's notability and provides reliable sources. I hope discussion about whether the article should be deleted will now consider this new article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is somewhat better, but you may also need to read up a bit on what we call reference bombing: I'm seeing things like IMDb in the sourcing, which is an absolute no-no at all times, and I'm seeing other primary and unreliable sources, and I'm seeing too many statements upon which you've stacked two or three redundant sources — there are almost no circumstances where any statement in a Wikipedia article actually needs two references for it instead of just one good one, and very definitely zero circumstances where any statement in a Wikipedia article ever needs three references stacked one after the other onto the same statement. When I tried to fix the punctuation errors in the article just now (commas or periods or closing parenthesis go first and then the reference tag, not vice versa), it was literal flaming hell trying to find where the corrected punctuation was supposed to go given all the reference-tetris. Yes, there's some media coverage in the mix now — but there's still too much junk sourcing being used, so it's still not free of problems. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The legitimate references are enough to establish notability, and we are really only interested in establishing whether the subject has enough notability here to warrant an article, which no doubt she has with the sources found. Also references that do not establish notability can nevertheless still be used to support certain facts. If there are other references that aren't good, feel free to remove them, including the content supported by those references, I do think it is too long-winded and could do with trimming anyway. Hzh (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bearcat, for the information about where the references should be placed in relation to commas and parentheses. I was aware that they are placed after periods - I thought I had seen them placed before commas. I would have been happy to correct their placement myself, if I had been given that feedback. As for the number of sources - I have observed in articles rated 'good article' (GA) that there are often two references for one piece of information, and sometimes more - three is not uncommon, and I have seen as many as eight. So it appears that other Wikipedia editors take a different view of multiple sources. As Hzh said, I hoped that there were enough of what Wikipedia considers legitimate references to establish notability, and the other references provide evidence of particular information. I note that you are in Canada, and I would appreciate your advice on which newspapers are considered reliable there. I have the impression that some papers published in a particular town are actually distributed nationally, and are regarded as having serious journalism, much as in Australia with the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age in Melbourne - but as I am not familiar with Canada, I am unsure which are not credible sources. The IMDB reference was in the original article as an external source, where I gather that it is acceptable - I changed it to a reference in the Madeleine Is .... section, as the personal entry on IMDB did not seem to me at all useful as a source for the subject of the article, whereas the entry for the film does provide more information (eg about the film crew). If/when the subject's notability is considered established, others will no doubt edit the article, perhaps adding information and sources not available to me, perhaps deleting some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 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 delete. (non-admin closure) funplussmart (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hauck[edit]

Adam Hauck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can't find any actual coverage of this Hauck and I'm having trouble verifying his credits outside of IMDB due to the common name but I'm still not seeing anything about any Adam Hauck that equates to significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied as A7 - no claim of notability, no references. Deb (talk) 13:46, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Brensberger[edit]

Athena Brensberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems like it possibly could be WP:TOOSOON but in any case I'm not seeing the necessary coverage required to meet any of the N criteria and I'm not sure what "Athena was in 7th position in Maxim Cover Girl 2018 contest from West Coast." means but I can find nothing to support such claims. Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Actually its West Group Twenty Four. The link is below
  

https://maximcovergirl.com/2018/athena-brensberger
Athena is an international model and science communicator and works for NASA Socials.--Insaafbarua (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument to avoid at deletion - a member of NASA Social isn't inherently notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Widefox; talk 09:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 1. agree with nom appears WP:TOOSOON with primary and/or non-indi sources, so fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources which for a WP:BLP especially isn't acceptable. 2. I question if this is also promotion. Clear deletion due to both. Widefox; talk 09:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even sure what the notability claim is here, but no sources to support WP:GNG for that matter

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 Delete. WP:A7/WP:G11 by Sjb72. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evertiq[edit]

Evertiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. No significant coverage to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Evertiq has been publishing news for the electronics industry for the past 18 years. Several Wikipedia articles are referring to Evertiq. It's prudent that it has it's own Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrik Bjorsell (talk • contribs) 07:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Henrik Bjorsell (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

• Delete I don't think there's any coverage besides the ones from Evertiq. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7 / G11 (why are even having this discussion)? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11 per K.e.coffman. No independent sources, article written by/deletion contested by the company owner with an undeclared conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 08:52, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Eleven[edit]

Next Eleven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Unlike Group of Seven or BRICS which are widely known and an actual existing club of countries, Next Eleven is only a hypothetical list of countries proposed by Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill (economist) who has a penchant for such acronyms like BRIC, MIST, MINT [17]. The coverage is only in Goldman Sachs papers or articles from its employees. O'Neil abandoned and replaced this list with another list called MIKT in 2011 and then again with MINT in 2014. the Authors bio already has this section Jim O'Neill#Next Eleven. DBigXrayᗙ 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 19:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think your concerns are valid, but I think there's enough study of the group that it passes GNG. In particular there are several academic papers and reports which study characteristics of the economies as a group: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. I agree O'Neill could probably stand to cool it with all the new country groups, but this one seems to have gotten enough traction to keep. If it isn't a keep, it should redirect to O'Neill. MarginalCost (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These papers you quoted although analyzes the economic parameters but none of them explain why this is notable, neither is this term widely cited in academia. The link [2] mentioned above for example only analyzes agrifood reports its findings as "BRICs and N-11 do not differ from other low, middle, or high income countries with respect to their import behaviour.", link [3], [4] and [5] analyzes the energy consumption, and [6] analyzed health spending. Such analysis are quite common and does not credit notability to the subject. Basically WP:SIGCOV is still lacking.

I am ok with your suggestion of redirect to Jim O'Neil as a search term. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I just see it differently, and would say multiple academics have decided to study the article subject, and they have analyzed the characteristics of the group and evaluated how it compared to other classifications of emerging economies. You're right that they don't talk too much about the term itself and its history, development or etymology (though there is some coverage), but a) most of our articles don't do that, and b) the original objection was that it was all self-promotional and self-reference. WP:SIGCOV is an odd objection to raise when these are pretty in-depth studies focusing mostly or entirely on the article subject.

I'm fine if consensus lands elsewhere, but in my mind these studies more than constitute significant coverage. MarginalCost (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - to me this is notable because it turned out not to be accurate. As such, it is an important article related to the history of economics. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 19:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precedent to keep inaccurate hypothetical lists. And there is no indication why it is important. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven. A hypothetical group that lack in/depth significant coverage as a group. Given the fact that the group is about 11 nations, it is bound have a little attention in RS. But in the current state, it is not enough to assert the firm notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect As said above. The coverage is really insignificant in terms of WP:GNG. Excelse (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley#Next Eleven—seems like a good alternative to deletion, given there is little or no in-depth coverage available and we have a sub-section at O'Neill's article devoted to this so-called group, covering the entire prose of the article. Bharatiya29 13:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect: A non-notable term by a single researcher. Should be deleted or probably be redirected to the researcher's page. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - going with the academic sources found by MarginalCost, the topic passes WP:GNG quite easily as an economic grouping. The sources suggest 'Next 11' as a group is being studied by various scholars independent of Goldman Sachs and more importantly, covering different fields like agriculture, energy, environment and not just limiting to investment analysis as Jim O'Neill initially did to coin the term. There must be more such sources in other languages as well if someone digs in. As a terminology too, Next 11 has an entry on Investopedia, an educational website on finance and investment, which suggests the term could be encyclopedic. The article though needs to be worked on as it looks like a poorly written list at present. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already explained why these sources presented by MarginalCost fail notability.
• The author of the hypothetical list Next 11 was a Goldman Sachs employee, any literature from Goldman Sachs will be considered Self Published in this case.
• WP:LOTSOFSOURCES must be existing isn't a valid argument. English is used in most of these 11 countries, so language is not a concern.
• Investopedia and other encyclopaedias are not a reliable source for defining notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @DBigXray: As an analogy, if there was debate over an article on, say, bees, and there were multiple academic studies on the reproductive habits and aerodynamics of bees, would you say those articles couldn't count for establishing the notability of bees, only for showing the notability of aerodynamics and reproduction? If not, then how are in-depth academic articles studying characteristics of N-11 any different? I'm open to being wrong here, and of course I'm with you that Investopedia isn't a reliable source, but if this topic has been the subject of serious academic study it deserves inclusion. I agree with you that it is not "widely cited in academia," but the threshold for GNG is not widespread use, but multiple independent reliable sources, which this has. MarginalCost (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarginalCost The bees comparison is clearly not applicable here. The crux of your argument above is since these academic papers exist that are in part related to the subject they are notable by default. Or in other words you are claiming existence of academic paper is enough for notability. This is not correct, it only confirms WP:V (verification). There are numerous journals out there and all of them do not pass our notability criteria. Their existence may merit an entry into an existing article as a section (such as this case where the authors Bio is being suggested by AfD contributors.) The notability bar for having a standalone article is higher. If such a group is notable you will find extensive coverage in newspapers, Media, books etc. Take examples of BRIC, G7, G20. they are clearly notable and finding reliable source for them is never a struggle. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Jim O'Neill, Baron O'Neill of Gatley. One of his another idea that has not yet received significant coverage. desmay (talk) 14:20, 30 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry Tayle[edit]

Ferry Tayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable artist, not much coverage online. aNode (discuss) 13:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:52, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Ayala[edit]

Eduardo Ayala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Several WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks in independent, reliable sources. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, none of which are usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I searched but could not find independent and secondary sources to verify notability. If somebody else could find references of distinction for Ayala outside of LDS' publications, we should consider keeping this entry. Otherwise, it does not belong here (similar arguments here). Den... (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Must be popular but there is lack coverage by independent reliable sources. desmay (talk) 14:20, 30 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} 04:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin mekkail[edit]

Vipin mekkail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable "director" with very loose claims which are unsupported by an RS or in depth coverage. Fails GNG and just about every N criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, nearly CSD territory from this SPA (now blocked) user that created it. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:26, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matata Corporation UK Limited[edit]

Matata Corporation UK Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure WP:ARTSPAM of a company that is "closely tied" to another company with no real in depth coverage and a ton of spammy PR garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - blatantly promotional. I wouldn't think twice. Deb (talk) 15:35, 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. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shameel J[edit]

Shameel J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musician, no sources and no evidence that his "award" is significant or credible. Add to that it's been deleted in the past under other names and the creator has never been able to provide a single source which would support it's inclusion or credibility. If anyone would like to comment or explain what here negates an A7, I'll gladly also rescind my AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per my decline of your A7 tag, WP:A7 doesn't mean "unsourced"; per the WP:PROD I added when I declined the speedy, Speedy deletion declined, proposed for deletion instead which will give the creator a week to find some reliable sources, otherwise it will be deleted, but since you've for some reason removed the ((prod)) template, wasting everyone's time here at AfD for a week will have the same effect. Tag-bombing a new editor's first article with an A7 template within an hour of its creation is atrocious behaviour. ‑ Iridescent 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does require significance and credibility. And they've created it before and couldn't source it, now is no different. There's nothing atrocious about tagging a7 an hour later and there's nothing that prohibits it. Why not move it to draft if you wanted to give them time and you thought it had a chance of passing the low bar of A7 or AFD? Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, it's a massive waste of time to spend at AFD on this but I actually AFD'd it before you prodded it and restored my AFD which you removed as PROD is a waste of time since it almost certainly would have been removed for some absurd reason and then we'd have to go another 7 days with unsourced/poorly sourced non-notable BLPs sitting in main space. There was no tag bombing, my single edit was to A7 it, rightfully. And this is far from their first article with 37 out of 46 of their cotnributions deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced BLP - no evidence that the subject complies with WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Google search only returns hits on social media websites and IMDb - none of which are acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources to show notability, and searches don't show anything better. JC7V-talk 20:32, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schettler[edit]

Paul Schettler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. This source listed in the article provides some information, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one.

The second listed source in the article 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. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability.

Assorted WP:BEFORE searches have turned up little other than name checks, which is not significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant reliable source coverage to establish notability under WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have two sources, the biogrpahical encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History that are indepdent of the subject, especially considering the second was published nearly a century after his death. Beyond that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saints history was written and edited by respected academics, and to exclude it as a source purely based on its publisher makes no sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 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 02:08, 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.

• Delete. NN. Spam. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 30 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Gosnell: The Trial of America's Biggest Serial Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The Forbes review is contributed, the LA Times review is a capsule review, and the others aren't by nationally known film critics. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:GNG. Google search of "Gosnell Movie" indicates topic meets GNG, with extensive coverage in Washington Post [23], The Hill [24], Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [25], The Guardian [26] etc, etc. DynaGirl (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: added those two sources to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs)

• Keep, as per newspaper coverage already noted. Each would have to be shown to be trivial or "capsule" to justify deletion; that burden is not met. FChE (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no good reason why the article shouldn't exist. Dogman15 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article covers a movie that clearly exists and provides information that we would find on any other page for any other real life movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.41.146 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC) — 80.233.41.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. Adding to @dynagirl's argument: NBC, and the Washington Times have covered it aswell. NBC [27]]Washington Times [[28]] Cobraman202 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as, in addition to the arguments proposed above, the film also meets the criteria of Notability. It refers to a real-life event that has been covered in established news sources. Furthermore, the film itself has also proven the subject of news reporting. Perhaps this should lead to more such citations needed to that effect, but lack of such citations should hardly warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RushLimborg (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Historically, this film is one of the highest grossing crowd-funded projects to date. The only reason to delete this entry is purely political, and Wikipedia shouldn't pull entries because of a political agenda. That's bad for everyone--especially Wikipedia if they want to be a neutral site for the dissemination of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.170.178 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — 74.196.170.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. 1. This article includes references from multiple unquestionable reliable sources and since most are articles on the film, not mere mentions that indicate notability. SOme unquestionably notable reliable sources Fortune, NBC News, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The New York Post, Slate, a local NBC affiliate, The Washington Examiner, The Wall Street Journal, and The Seattle Times. Other sources: TownHall.com, The Hollywood Reporter, National Review, Deadline, CinemaBlend, Law360, and Daily Wire. 2. If you compare it to other entries in , which is the category it is part of, it has far more reliable sources and notability than most (I just compared a few at random). 3. The movie maker's choice to do no pre-screenings for critics noted in the article may be a reason for the lack of large critiques but it alone isn't enough to delete it. 4. The film had a clear political or policy slant that many disagree with, but Wikipedia is not for moderating such points. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 01:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep - per WP:NFP, notability is shown by media coverage. In addition to WSJ, Forbes, the LA Times and the Hollywood Reporter, and other sources listed above, there's also Philadelphia Inquirer coverage. [[29]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The movie is real, in cinemas, and will be a DVD. The transcript is based on the Facts of a Court Case which really happened and from which a conviction resulted. Anybody can verify this in the official Records. There's no reason to delete this article from Wikipedia. People searching for information will need it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelticUser (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC) — CelticUser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment. Canvassing here. wumbolo ^^^ 07:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • That was not intended as canvassing. I read policies on speedy keep and was uncertain if they applied here so wanted editors with more experience to weigh in. I have not dealt with speedy keep before and after reading policies I was not sure if they applied to this case. I mentioned the list of sources as the main question was whether such sources were sufficient for speedy keep. Apologies if this was misinterpreted. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per all the arguments above, particularly Tim Templeton's. A publicly released movie featuring a famous actor (Dean Cain) that was reviewed in major newspapers (L.A. Times, WSJ) is so obviously notable that it's hard to imagine any argument for deletion. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 10:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't reviewed in the WSJ. wumbolo ^^^ 11:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google search of "Gosnell Movie & WSJ" turns up this: [30] DynaGirl (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:NFILM. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:07, 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. Consensus here is clearly delete, but I'd just like to note a few things:

1. Declining the A7 tag does indeed seem appropriate
2. Comments at AfD should be on-topic and if directed at fellow editors should only be if relevant to potential issues with the article under discussion.
3. Sexual jokes need never be made, but if you feel you really, really must, please take it to a user talk page.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Lenzie[edit]

Abbey Lenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable author with an utterly non-notable prize, akin to that of a high school talent show. No coverage or meaningful reviews (that I can find.) And I'm not sure how winning a random prize that no one has ever heard of is significant or meaningful, but here we are. Praxidicae (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A7 only requires a credible claim of significance. That's present with the claim of winning an award. If you want to argue that the award is not notable, that's what this discussion is for, not a speedy deletion nomination. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winning any old prize or award is not significant and if that's enough to negate an A7 then it should be gotten rid of altogether. Shall I create an article about myself and the International Thespian of The Year award I won in high school so we can force it into an AFD on the basis that I won an award therefor it's significant? Praxidicae (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is likely significant to someone. A7 is for pages like "John Public is a musician. He created a band in his garage.", not for pages that make a "claim" of significance. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prize is likely significant to someone. That's nice - winning first place in a state fair for best apple pie is significant to someone too. Doesn't mean it's significant in the context of Wikipedia. Let's use some common sense here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If you won an international award, and it was covered significantly in reliable sources, that might indeed merit you an article if the award was truly international and significant. But those would be issues for a discussion, not a speedy deletion where the criteria must be clear and indisputable. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the issue with your argument that it's significant - it's not covered in independent reliable sources (in this deletion discussion.) It's literally "x won x award" that has no significance anywhere and no independent coverage. Saying that it's significant to someone is ridiculous. Praxidicae (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But obviously this is going off topic, if you want to debate the merits of what A7 significant and credible actually mean to your average editor, perhaps an start RFC because calling any award that's mentioned significant and credible is just defying any common sense. Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get another administrator to agree with you, then feel free and I give you my best wishes. But I saw an A7 and made an interpretation based on what I saw. I don't speak for them but I assume Ritchie333 did the same thing. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not an CSD A7, because at least we need to work out what the Plaza Literary Prize is, why we don't have an article on it, see if we could write one and then redirect Abbey Lenzie there. That's pretty much my thought process. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can see why me fellow administrators are mistaken, but from doing a modest amount of research, I can see that Abbey Lenzie isn't notable, the Plaza Literary Prize isn't notable and the awarding 'organisation' (in reality, a fucking coffee store cum bookstore) sure as hell ain't notable. It's a great pity we need to go through this process, but hey ho, it's not as if there's much better things to do, is there. Nick (talk) 5:14 pm, Today (UTC+1)

A "fucking coffee store cum bookstore" - mixing coffee, fucking and cum? - sounds like the sort of thing you might find in De Wallen, Amsterdam, though I personally prefer to drink coffee fully clothed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A wise decision when I see that coffee cup on your user page... Nick (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete, this author is not yet notable, and nor is that award. Practically no information on Lenzie is available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An insignificant local award by a bookstore/gallery. An author with no works listed on amazon. There is no sense arguing at AfD whether or not a speedy is correct, --once it has been challenged, the discussion should be here and should be about the article not the process. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I am the new pages patroller who originally requested the the article for deletion under the A7 criterion for speedy deletion after doing a fair-bit of research on both the subject and the prize she has won, but, my request was declined by 331dot and whilst I see his reasoning, I don't think Lenzie is notable enough to warrant a separate Wikipedia entry on her. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I had a look around but can't find any way of salvaging this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, not sure what all the fuss is about at the beginning of this afd, isnt it correct that a speedy delete can be removed by any editor as long as its not the creator? with a reason (i see a reason was given - "won a prize" which seems to come under no. 5 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria), it can then come to afd; btw this is a Delete, as not meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR, the book's award in the article is not significant, multiple reviews have not been made. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:07, 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 merge to Siyi. How much to merge is left to editorial discretion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Taishan Region[edit]

Greater Taishan Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

nominator's rationale WP:original research. There is Taishan, Guangdong, a modern administrative area (a city), or Sunning (old name of Taishan), an administrative area in Qing dynasty. As well as Siyi, a notable area of 4 cities (or called Wu Yi, which Si mean 4, Wu mean 5) and Siyi Yue, a local dialect of Yue Chinese . However, introducing a new original research concept "Greater Taishan Region" is not allowed in wikipedia. Even if it exist, i don't find any reliable source in Chinese or in English. Matthew hk (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Siyi. From the opening sentence: The Greater Taishan Region ... is another term used to refer the Sze Yap Region, where "Sze Yap" redirects to "Siyi". Most of the content is duplicated in that article. The information in the list of notable people is duplicated the articles for individual counties in Guangdong, but we can move the list to the Siyi article if it's ethnically sensitive. If we can find a source for the term "Greater Taishan Region" or "台山地区" it may warrant a single mention in the Siyi article. Delete as second choice. Snuge purveyor (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Siyi - content fork and original research. -Zanhe (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the list of name, it is unsourced and some of them may be living. Which unsourced BLP content may be remove entirely. I knew there is some book (and PhD thesis that became published book in low circulation) on researching place of origin and their success in Hong Kong, but the current state of the list was a typical WP:listcraft (a wiki thesis not a guide), unsourced, lack of exact inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc. If people want to find people from foo, they can just look for Category:People from Taishan (and the cat is a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy material for C2D reason). Matthew hk (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• merge / redirect. They seem to cover the same content and be about the same size, so it’s unclear how much of any needs to be merged.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:54, 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 speedy procedural close per WP:BMB; nominator is a banned sockpuppeteer. If an editor in good standing has a good-faith reason to discuss deletion of this article, please re-nominate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanuj Mahashabde[edit]

Tanuj Mahashabde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:Nactor. One role in TV series, last AFD was held with the same reason and the result was Delete. Iqra Dude (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and previous deletion review consensus. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:37, 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} 04:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cost report[edit]

Cost report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Stub created in 2007 as a WP:DICTDEF. Tagged as unreferenced since 2007. Attracted some link spam in in 2016 as part of a walled garden campaign to promote what's now Draft:Medicare cost report and tagged for ref improvement since then. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; an unsourced DICTDEF and the specific usage for film production isn't notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Srishti Publishers[edit]

Srishti Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails as per WP:NCORP. Notability would not be inherited by mentioning subjects with Wikipedia articles. Dial911 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If a publisher publishes multiple best-selling works[31][32][33], then that's really not inherited notability, but a function of the core activity of that business, and ORGSIG applies. Visible online in-depth coverage is woeful (are there RS Indian publishing trade press sources?), but it's at minimum NOTEWORTHY as the most prolific publisher of low-end books[34] which is credited as having been primarily responsible for launching the Indian mass-market fiction boom.[35][36] (yes, they're both interviews, but Hachette is independent of Srishti, and questions asked in an interview in an RS can be treated as factual). Since its inclusion is a necessary part of the modern history of book publishing in India, it should at most be encapsulated and redirected there, but if that's to be done it probably requires a more comprehensive/balanced expansion of that target. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new and improved CORP policy has way too high standards. This publishing house is nowhere near it. Wikipedia needs reliable sources for any company to have its standalone article. Mere publishing bestselling books doesn’t grant it an entry to the encyclopedia. Those bestselling books shall have an article here not the publishing house. Having an article just because it produced some bestselling books is a perfect example of inherited notability. Dial911 (talk) 04:21, 20 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} 04:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Word Processor[edit]

Atlantis Word Processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A shareware word processor written by a small group of people not a company of any significance, with no indication of actual significance. I can't find any evidence it's considered important, or ever was. Almost entirely the work of user: Marius2~enwiki, who has never edited on any other topic, and maintained by others with a similarly narrow focus. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep The three reviews in the article aren't lengthy, a few paragraphs each, but are certainly reviews in reliable, independent sources. Not sure if [37] is fully indpendent (or really all that in depth) but it is long. I think WP:N is met with the three reviews in the article, but the other one shows there is more out there too. Hobit (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Hobit. Modernponderer (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the additional sources User:Gillian2008 provided below. Modernponderer (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not overly impressed by the reviews, these seem to be software download sites who'll list everything submitted to them and give a brief review of a good many of them, i.e. these aren't really much better than a directory listing. Are there any better out there? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability. A handful of reviews from nine years ago do not establish significance. Mackensen (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is exactly an assertion of notability. This has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. The fact they are nine years old really doesn't matter (notability isn't temporary). Hobit (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You show me a software product that had a handful of reviews nine years ago and nothing written about it since, and those reviews serve to say "it exists, try it", I'll tell you that it wasn't notable then and isn't notable now. None of the reviews constitute in-depth or significant coverage. That a perfunctory AfD from nine years ago got it wrong doesn't change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Keep the reviews are quite short and it's impossible to tell whether they've gone through any sort of editorial review, especially the CNet ones. I'm willing to give a benefit of the doubt to the PC World one, but it's not enough. I also saw the telenet post and it doesn't appear to be a reliable source for notability reasons - just a personal blog. As it stands, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC) EDIT: the new sources get this past WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 20:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring to the teleread.org source I linked to? It certainly appears to be a reliable source. The article had been previously published as a blog post, but I don't think that's an issue. If the NYT republishes someone's blog post, it's still a NYT article, yes? Hobit (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I found Teleread independently (and then got its name wrong). I didn't even notice it was originally from someone else's blog, but I don't think Teleread is a reliable source for notability purposes - it's a WP:BLOG that openly welcomes contributors. The Cnet review, PC World review, and Tucows review all say "download this now!" as part of their downloads section and not as part of their reviews section, which really concerns me from a WP:RS point of view - I'd certainly be more impressed with a review in the actual PC World magazine. SportingFlyer talk 10:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd not characterize that as a blog [38] as it certainly appears to have editorial control even if the workforce is all unpaid. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's still self-published, which can't be used for notability per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works. The fact it was reprinted what appears to be verbatim from something clearly self-published here [39] doesn't qualify that source, in my opinion. SportingFlyer talk 13:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we'll have to disagree on that per my NYT comment above. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your example above seems rather naive. If the NYT reproduces someones blog verbatim and puts a disclaimer on it saying they haven't checked it and bear no responsibility for the content, would you contend it's still an NYT article and so we should treat it in the same way as other NYT articles? Not that is the exact case here, but surely the point is you respect NYT articles because of the trust you put in their checking etc. if the NYT stopped that and just started reproducing user submissions etc. it may still be an NYT article, but you'd probably stop respecting the quality of them. In this case the publishing guidelines contemporary to when that article was published do suggest some level of editing of submitted content, but seem primarily interested in writing style etc. this probably brings at least a reasonable question as to how reliable it is as a source overall. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• the NYT does this all the time. OpEds are exactly this. So are newswire articles. We assume the Times used their editorial judgement in selecting those articles. Same with "selections from a book" which also commonly appear in the NYT (and WSJ, etc.). That something was published elsewhere first doesn't take away from it being published in the NYT. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time (probably now too), Teleread was a self-published blog which accepted contributions from other self-publishers. I have no problem keeping the source in the article but you cannot use it to demonstrate notability, sorry. SportingFlyer talk 21:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• If the NYT publish other peoples stuff with no checking and bearing no responsibility for content, then the fact that it appears in the NYT should mean absolutely nothing to us, we should look to the originator for their reputation for fact checking etc. It's the very fact that we believe NYT do some checking and do stand by the content which is what gives them a good reputation and makes us value them as a source. The contrast here is not the NYT it's a blog whose controls at the time are indicated by them to be they checked the articles not for content (beyond being in the field they were interested in), but for writing style. That's not a good standard to use. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing I'm missing something. This website appears to have both a long history and fairly large editorial group. Do they disclaim responsibility for their contributors somewhere? From what I can tell it appears to have editorial control. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's relevant to list this article's recent appearance at Deletion Review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_October_13. - tucoxn\^talk 15:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete We have never decided whether "review" means full-scale review, or the sort of brief notices that are used here. This has been a question in multiple fields. (TheEPUB one isn't even a brief notice--it's a mere listing by any standard). There is probably no commercial word processing program at all that has not gotten reviews to the extent of the present ones. The question is not editorial control, but rather the publication's decision to be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (mainly to JzG) Most software products are developed by "small groups of people". There are even many popular products developed by individuals (Sigil, Calibre, Notepad++). The English WP includes articles about almost 100 word processors. Many of them have less reviews than Atlantis Word Processor. Some of them don't have a single review. Many of them include links to non-English reviews. In general, you will hardly find in-depth reviews for non-top-end software. So what do you expect from the Atlantis Word Processor article? To me, this is a selective judgment and lack of consistency in applying the deletion criteria. I've just spent 5 minutes on Googling to find more reviews and notable articles on Atlantis Word Processor: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. I would find more if I searched the Web Archive. There are also non-English reviews: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] Gillian2008 (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but I can understand people thinking the references are too slight to support an article or that the text is (or at least used to be) tainted by conflict of interest. In my view the reviews meet the GNG criteria because they are sufficient in number, detail and independence. However, meeting the criteria only "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article" and so adopting more stringent requirements is perfectly allowable to keep our contents reduced to manageable amounts. However, in this case I think the article is an overall asset and the guidelines as written support such an assessment. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A handful of reviews at time of issue and nothing since? Surely if this software was in any way notable it would have attracted subsequent attention.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of reviews on the Web. Please see my comment above. Gillian2008 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I have added 6 new review links to the article, but JzG removed them all. Gillian2008 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Gillian2008, please post any additional sources you find here so the community can evaluate them. It seems rather pointless to spend time and effort editing an article that may well end up deleted within days, whether citations are being removed or not. Modernponderer (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I will. At this point, the article includes links to 5 reviews. There are 12 more in my comment above ([52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]). I'm adding another 6: [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. So, 20+ reviews in total. I wonder how much is enough for notability? Gillian2008 (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent that's what we're figuring out. As a closing reviewer (I relisted because there's no current consensus, but it seems reasonably probable that consensus can be achieved) I would consider the following: On one hand NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY so it doesn't matter if all the reviews are old, but on the other hand if it only received reviews immediately after release, perhaps ONE EVENT may come into play. Getting a roomful of wikipedia editors to agree on what constitutes depth of coverage can an entertaining proposition. Obviously the more you can provide the better, but adding a number of passing mentions isn't going to help your position. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26, one would really hope your link to WP:1E was just an oversight on your part, as otherwise it would call similarly contentious closes into question. The full and "correct" link is WP:BIO1E – as the "one event" criterion only applies to people. See also: WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED Modernponderer (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, and thank you for the prescient clarification. Yes, WP:BIO1E only applies to people on a strict basis, but when determining notability the principle can apply when considering whether this is worthy of encyclopedic attention. I'm failing to see the applicability of WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED, because we are indeed talking about the "actions" of sources, not their inaction. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:78.26, this software is developed since 2000. So it's normal that some of those reviews are "old". But there are "new" reviews and articles as well: 2018 (2), 2016 (1), 2015 (5), 2014 (2), 2012 (1), 2010 (1), 2009 (4), 2008 (3), 2007 (2), 2005 (1) – see my links above. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The latest article is by ZDNet [70] (Oct 2018). If the software was unimportant for the industry, Cisco wouldn't invest time in reverse engineering it. Gillian2008 (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that latest coverage is pretty in-depth. Not positive, but in-depth. Well over WP:N now IMO. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most the links above don't sell me, but the Softpedia review from 2005 and the 2018 ZDNet article show the program is not some flash in the pan (or a never-flash). I cant analyze the foreign language reviews for reliability, but it does seem to be geographically widespread. Passes GNG in any case. Some reviews should be better noted in the article, showing program strength and weaknesses, currently it appears spammy because the article just says "here's this product and here's what it does". 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another fresh review (Oct 26, 2018): [71]. Gillian2008 (talk) 08:35, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Mbaka[edit]

Emmanuel Mbaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Initially this biography was only sourced to subject's own web page. I have added a few references to sources, but I do not find the coverage needed to build an article from scratch. As it currently stands it fails [[WP:BASIC]]/[[WP:GNG]]. Sam Sailor 16:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:58, 7 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} 04:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lo Fibre Companion[edit]

The Lo Fibre Companion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Deb (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with that; indeed I would have redirected it as a first option. However in this case I was not sure of the appropriate target. The editor who created this is making other article on (to my mind) nn recordings by this artiste, & revering conversions to redirects. So it would probably have ended up here....TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When a voter says "redirect" she should say WHERE to redirect to. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, LongTone. The redirect (to the artist, as is normal in these cases) could be protected to prevent further reversion, but that options not open to you so delete is absolutely acceptable to me. Deb (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a various-artists compilation, logically the album could be redirected to the label's article, but no such article exists despite its notable founderJustin Broadrick. Whether or not the label is notable is a separate discussion, but since it has no article, this particular album must stand on its own. It has a one-paragraph introductory "review" at AllMusic which is merely an indicator of its existence, and the typical listings at retail/streaming sites. It has no other coverage in reliable sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 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 Venturini Motorsports. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Smith[edit]

Chandler Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable individual who clearly fails WP:GNG. I deprodded it by a mistake so I felt it was my responsibility to nominate it here. Redirecting it to Venturini Motorsports seems like the best thing to do right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, no refs in the article but possibly has a future, it is just a bit toosoon. Szzuk (talk) 21:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ik Onkar[edit]

Ik Onkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Citations either only mention the subject of the article in passing or are unreliable; fails WP:GNG. Almost entirely original research. --Joshualouie711^talk 03:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I haven't looked at the content or sourcing of the article, but this is a prominent symbol of Sikhism, so I would expect there to be an aricle about it. – Uanfala (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 132 results for "Ik Onkar" on Google Scholar. Though most of them are probably little more than a mention some of them should be good enough. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Anti-Feudal Dialectic of Sikhism Social Scientist Vol. 2, No. 8 (Mar., 1974), pp. 22-26: Guru Nanak gave a new orientation and complexion to the materialist tradition ... he envisaged the material, phenomenal reality as a creation of the transcendental spiritual reality (Ik Onkar). And much other discussion as well. Furthermore, I believe it's likely that sources are obscured due to problems with transliteration. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one of the holy symbols of Sikhism and the prime Mul Mantar. The refs presented are enough for demonstrating the notability, and a lot more coverage exists in Gurmukhi language --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 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 America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Tam[edit]

Celine Tam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Somehow like an advertisement, feel free to rewrite B dash (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to America's Got Talent (season 12)#Week 3 Hyperbolick (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Hyperbolick. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure about artist specific notability guideline, but the subject seem passing WP:GNG for the news coverage in Chinese language article. the article itself looks like G11 material for citing many pirated video, hosted in youtube. Matthew hk (talk) 10:59, 30 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Piazzo[edit]

Piazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable neighborhood in a Swiss municipality, article has existed for 10 years without any claim to notability and no additional sources of additional information to expand the article. Tobyc75 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It does appear to be a recognised settlement. Separate villages, even if part of another municipality for administrative purposes, as opposed to simple neighbourhoods of other settlements, are generally considered to be notable per WP:GEOLAND. See WP:NPLACE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this falls under "Populated places without legal recognition". While it appears on a map and is populated, it has no specific governmental role or authority. On the website of the municipality of Brusio it's listed as 1 of 5 districts in the municipality. As far back as 1960 it was not a municipality, so it wouldn't qualify based on formerly being a legally recognized municipality. Additionally, I can't find any further information to expand the article beyond its current size.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't, if you read the definition of that. Note that this also applies to most British villages or hamlets that are not parishes in their own right; however, they all have articles. A settlement does not have to have its own government or council to be a recognised populated place. It merely has to be recognised as an individual settlement. A settlement that is legally and/or administratively part of another municipality/parish/commune/whatever is still a recognised populated place. If we deleted all of the articles on villages that weren't actually administrative units in their own right we'd probably end up deleting half the articles on settlements on Wikipedia, which would certainly not benefit the project. We would also run into the problem that different countries have different administrative units in different sizes (e.g. Italy's comunes are generally considerably larger and cover more separate settlements than France's communes or England's parishes), which would result in bias for and against the inclusion of settlements in different countries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It appears to be a village. It is another matter, for wp:RM perhaps, whether this should be moved to a more specific title such as "Piazzo, Poschiavo, Grisons, Switzerland" or whatever. --Doncram (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per all above, as this does appear to be a populated place. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:55, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national teams with no FIFA Women's World Cup appearances[edit]

List of national teams with no FIFA Women's World Cup appearances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fail WP:NOTSTATS and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national teams with no FIFA World Cup appearances Hhkohh (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]