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. Note that the delete arguments are more about how this is written than fundamental notability of the topic so it may be possible to try again, ie WP:TNT. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of young people's rights in France[edit]

Timeline of young people's rights in France (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'm not convinced this list actually reflects what it says it does. Most of these are just...random things that young people did, like being granted stuff from the royal purse or travelling to sleep with their older boyfriend. Maybe the stuff about age of consent and social media use down towards the bottom could be construed as having to do with "young peoples rights", but otherwise this is more a list of trivia than coherent content.

I'd say we should merge anything relevant to like, child welfare in France or something, but we don't have an article on the topic by any title that I've found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Although the article's author provides considerable sourcing, there does not seem to be a source that connects all these historical factoids into a narrative of youth rights in France. Therefore, the whole exercise is WP:Synthesis and must go. — JFG ^talk 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This article illustrates what young people in France were able and allowed to do over the times. It provides examples of freedom of religion, freedom of movement, right to work, right to education, child marriage, ... and their curtailment. It is construed analogously to Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom and Timeline of young people's rights in the United States. The article can be improved rather than deleted. Wakari07 (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator that this list does not represent what it says it does, and I don't agree that it's analagous to either the UK or US lists, which are about rights, responsibilities, legislation, etc, relating to children in general (or a particular category of children), but not individual children, as this one largely is. Only the last 4 items are general (the point about the French Revolution, etc, does not say how the Declaration relates to children or young people). I don't think it's worth keeping just for the last 4 points. (I'm not even sure that it would constitute WP:Synthesis, because I can't see any conclusion or implication!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, really under the idea of WP:TNT. This isn't a timeline of rights but a mish-mash of accomplishments or legislation that actually curtails rights (like the minors who need parental consent to access social media). Ifnord (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn’t even written in the style of timelines on Wikipedia. It looks like a 9th grade essay.Trillfendi (talk) 04:07, 8 November 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. I'm discounting the opinion that treats very old people as inherently notable because this is contrary to our guidelines and practice. Sandstein 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Mason[edit]

Aida Mason (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)

Declined PROD. My original rationale is the basis for this AfD; "Yet another thoroughly non-notable oldster. 4 obituaries and one local news article is nowhere close to surpassing routine coverage, and simply breathing for longer than anyone else in an arbitrarily defined geographical area is not inherently notable." The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family, jobs held and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Article only includes minimal information about her quiet life. Nothing notable beside her old age; coverage in longevity tables is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 02:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plenty of non-routine significant and sustained coverage of the subject, the details of her life may be quiet but so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly. Easily passes WP:GNG and the delete votes amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are not policy based. Its more than WP:BLP1E as there is sustained coverage of her later years, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so what; there are many people interested in the lives of the super elderly… In other words, you like it? Guess what, I like it too! That's not an argument against deletion. — JFG ^talk 22:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Atlantic306 there is enough coverage to meet notability of her age , and as there is a huge amount of 100+ on here which also have non eventful lives (Merle Barwis an example) a precedent has already been set.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point; the GRG and its fans used Wikipedia for years as a dumping ground for sub-stubs such as this and the one you linked, and the early discussions on them had so many (and many of them with an obvious COI) SPAs that they're effectively useless for determining consensus on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However you have missed the point - we have on Wikipedia a wikiproject devoted to this so there are users who believe that this should be in Wikipedia - as the dictionary says encyclopedia says "a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Centurions is the subject, and the centurions that are on here is the aspects.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for years they used Wikipedia as a dumping ground for their pet project and ran roughshod over our policies on notability. It's not whether a few obsessive fanboys wanting to promote their organization think something is notable, it's whether reliable, secondary sources do; in this case, the near-total absence of them shows this particular oldster is not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included is the wording of WP:BIO which means the guidelines are not set in stone. Wikipedia is a global project that will see different people have different ideas on what should and should not be on here. The WP:GNG is not a policy - its General Notability Guidance and as such is managed on a policy of wikipedias members making decisions. If Administrators thought the other Centurions did not meet the requirements they would have been removed. It will be down to the administrator to make a judgement - this is not a vote just a talking shop to put our opinion across.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well, I think just that she lived 111 years should be given significant consideration.Alex-h (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability guideline or policy that says the oldest anything is notable or entitled to an article. Your keep argument is entirely without merit, and there have been countless thousands of supercentenarians at that. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Newshunter12 put it best: this is a WP:BIO1E, the subject will have nothing else written about it as her sandwich-making skills appear not to have been notable enough to make any news that I can find. I highly doubt any reader will type her name into the search box, she can be preserved in the longevity tables that currently exist. Ifnord (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trillfendi (talk) 04:12, 8 November 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. Sandstein 11:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Quinn (politician)[edit]

Shawn Quinn (politician) (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 article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Quinn, who is a Libertarian, lacked significant press coverage and has most likely never held political office. He received 1.46% of the vote and reportedly 0.6% of the vote in 2014 and 2018, respectively. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fringe party candidate with no other notability as per Baltimore Sun: "Quinn... served in the U.S. Navy for 20 years, from 1980 to 2000. He’s also worked with the American Red Cross, in law enforcement in Newport News, Virginia, and is currently a government contractor, according to his website.. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Failed candidate fails WP:NPOL. Flesh out information about the candidates in the election article. Bkissin (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Fails WP:NPOL. Chetsford (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, the article has more than 5 sources, and it is about a candidate for Governor of one of the States of the United States, the importance of the article is implicit in the importance of the event.--Leglish (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see how that's going to prevent this article from getting deleted. You haven't added anything new yet. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Essentially a campaign brochure, and he won't win. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — no, not even at the gubernatorial level. To qualify for an article, he would need to (a) win the election, (b) already have a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, besides the candidacy itself, that would already have gotten him an article on those grounds anyway, or (c) receive so much more coverage than most other candidates across the United States are also getting that there would be credible grounds to claim his candidacy as a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. But none of those things are shown here at all — and the fact that a bit of campaign coverage exists is not a free WP:GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL just because of that campaign coverage's existence, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage, so every candidate would always get that free pass and NPOL would automatically be gutted as having no applicability at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer talk 00:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Low octane political ad for an unelected politician. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat. Winners, not candidates, meet notability criteria for WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:35, 8 November 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 Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Sandstein 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Schlakman[edit]

Ian Schlakman (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 article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Schlakman, who is from the Green Party, lacked significant press coverage and has most likely never held political office. He finished fourth in the 2018 Maryland gubernatorial election, reportedly with 0.5% of the vote. There's not a lot of content in this article besides his political positions. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC); edited 06:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unelected, minor party candidate with no notability that the Baltimore Sun can locate: "Schlakman, a 33-year-old who grew up in New York, has... run for office twice before, and lost, and has owned a small, computer-technology business.. Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018. Failed candidate fails WP:NPOL. Flesh out information about the candidates in the election article. Bkissin (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, the article has more than 5 sources, and it is about a candidate for Governor of one of the States of the United States, the importance of the article is implicit in the importance of the event.--Leglish (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Same thing as Shawn Quinn (politician). More sources, but no new content. Not to mention, both of these articles are almost written identically. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — no, not even at the gubernatorial level. To qualify for an article, he would need to (a) win the election, (b) already have a strong claim to preexisting notability for other reasons, besides the candidacy itself, that would already have gotten him an article on those grounds anyway, or (c) receive so much more coverage than most other candidates across the United States are also getting that there would be credible grounds to claim his candidacy as a special case over and above most other people's candidacies. But none of those things are shown here at all — and the fact that a bit of campaign coverage exists is not a free WP:GNG pass that exempts a candidate from having to pass NPOL just because of that campaign coverage's existence, because every candidate always gets some campaign coverage, so every candidate would always get that free pass and NPOL would automatically be gutted as having no applicability at all anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Just like Shawn Quinn (politician), merely being a candidate is not enough for notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then redirect per Bkissin. SportingFlyer talk 00:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018 per Bkissin, subject fails WP:NPOL. Ifnord (talk) 03:39, 8 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Moscow (Baku)[edit]

Hotel Moscow (Baku) (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 now demolished hotel that existed only for 23 years. No sources provided to show notability. I can see only passing mentions and trivial sources in searches, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I tried looking for something, maybe architecturally, that made this former hotel notable but I failed. Ifnord (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another hotel. Nothing of significance to help it pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teppo Takala[edit]

Teppo Takala (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 and WP:BASIC. Was unable to find reliable secondary sources coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES suggests that ambassadors require significant coverage. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:POLOUTCOMES says that ambassadors are not inherently notable. I tried googling from Finnish-language sources and there was nothing substantial, just mentions that he was the ambassador to Mexico etc. --Pudeo (talk) 09:20, 2 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rappal Sukumaramenon[edit]

Rappal Sukumaramenon (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 clearly fails WP:GNG for lack of significant reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of sources dedicated to the subject Spiderone 13:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While I do see that he is mentioned in a couple of articles as the lyricist Rappal Sukumara Menon, he is not notable enough to warrant his own article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:04, 7 November 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. At the moment, this article is simply too soon. I would not be opposed to its recreation given time and on the condition that there be suitable sources at said time to demonstrate adequate notability per the relevant notability guideline(s). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:56, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Zajdel[edit]

Eddie Zajdel (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, whose claims to notability are referenced entirely to junk sourcing. The references here include IMDb (three times), Instagram posts (twice), a YouTube video, his own self-published website, a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level, and a piece of user-generated content on medium.com -- none of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources. And of the two sources that actually represent media coverage, both are covering him solely in the context of building stuff in his back yard when he was a teenager, and even one of those is just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine, not substantive coverage about him in a major media outlet. So these sources are failing right across the board to make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article -- it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DELETION — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor who is proposing the deletion of this article believes he or she has significant points, except for the fact that they are entirely bias. He or she begins the dispute using the term "Junk Sourcing" which is a personal stance taken entirely from the opinion of this editor, with no given points. This editor took very little time to truly assess what these sources are, and the reason why these sources were used.

This editor begins by addressing issues from a personal standpoint, not reading the articles and leaving out the bigger picture. The editor proposing the deletion quotes "a directory listing of his record as a baseball player at the high school level" In the article this source, in no way was referring to the notability of this individual as baseball player, but rather further sourcing that this individual "graduated from Canton High School".

Another quote from the editor "just a short bit about him in the editor's letter on the masthead page of a minor special-interest magazine" again this source was not in any way intended to reference his notability of a director, but further establishing that he did indeed have a passion for art and creation at a young age.

The editor also quotes "it's 80 per cent sources that can't support notability at all, and 20 per cent sources that aren't covering him in a noteworthy context" This editor is taking the amount of sources listed and using that to determine "without even reading them" that they are not credible.

There are countless number or wikipedia pages that establish notability using 3 or less articles including IMDb and online publications. This article just happens to use 11 of them to further establish the notability of every sentence in the bio.

I am not claiming this individual to be Steven Spielberg, however Eddie Zajdel is known for what he does in the film industry. This article is explaining in an unbiased way who Eddie Zajdel is and what he has done. This clearly fits the requirement for Wikipedia. This article uses 11 sources to insure the notably of every word written in the article.   

Wikipedia quotes "sources may encompass published works in any form and media, and in any language" just because this editor in his or her opinion dislikes the articles used to determine notability, does not mean in any way that they do not establish notability. This editors proposed deletion article was poorly written with no concept, which demonstrates to me that he or she did not take the time to look deeper into the reasons these sources were used, and the true concept of this page.

This article is not the strongest article ever created on Wikipedia, but just because an editor briefly reads the article, reads none of the sources, makes irrelavent points personally assessing this individual, and fails to take the time to look deeper into the reasons why they were used is not in ANY WAY a reason for an article to be deleted.

MatthewFayer (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatthewFayer (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

References for the notability of a person must be reliable source coverage in media, such as newspapers or magazines or books, which represent editorial content about him by people other than himself, and which are covering him in the context of the thing that's being claimed as his reason for having an encyclopedia article. A person's notability cannot be stacked onto directories like IMDb or a high school sports database, or their own self-published websites or social networking accounts — and if the reason why he "should" have a Wikipedia article is that he makes films, then human interest coverage which supports where he went to high school but says nothing whatsoever about his work as a filmmaker does not constitute support for notability either. The rule is not that a person automatically qualifies to have a Wikipedia article as long as the things it says are referenced just anywhere — only certain specific types of sources count as valid support for a person's notability, and none of the references here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:Too soon Rmhermen (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete social media user generated content and youtube are not RS. Way too soon. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable coverage from secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Not notable yet. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:42, 10 November 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. WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is that GNG is met; the nominator and others have been convinced by the substantial coverage demonstrated in the Keep !votes. Numerically it's something like 17-3 now. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Wohl[edit]

Jacob Wohl (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)

Just like the last time, and the time before, no amount of adding negative information will justify a strongly promotional article about this 20-year-old guy. wumbolo ^^^ 19:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Pinging previous discussion participants. wumbolo ^^^ 19:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (responding to ping): The two previous articles on Wohl were rightfully deleted at AfD in June 2016 and April 2017 as promotional articles for a non-notable teenager. The current article is different, and as long as it does not turn into promotionalism and lies, and if the person is currently notable enough to pass GNG and NBIO without resorting to blatant PR and puff pieces as citations, then I don't have as much objection to it (particularly since there is nothing promotional about it, much less "strongly promotional" as the nominator claims), unless someone can convince me otherwise. I'll keep this AfD on my watchlist. Softlavender (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, or move to a page called "Smear campaign against Robert Mueller" or something, as this is the sole reason he is notable. Althoungh the existence of this article may give unwarranted attention to this teenage clown who definitely outsmarted himself, the incident and its resulting reports is significant enough. Especially when he is under FBI investigation. All we need is to avoid PR edits per usual practice. I just can't wait to cement him into the list of hoaxes. Comical gold. Tsumikiria (T/C) 19:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  as this is the sole reason he is notable so delete per WP:BLP1E? wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article does not bear standing as is (which is still debatable), rather than being deleted, the material should be merged into Robert Mueller or one of the articles on the Special Counsel Investigation or the Russian interference. Softlavender (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. If this is the case, then yes. He will likely remain as a low-profile individual. Although it is very likely that he will do more stupid things that spark future AfD nominations, his past "achievements" are irrelevant, at best. We could add a section under Robert Mueller or Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) instead. Merge Keep, from the current projection of this page Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This is really too minor of an event for a section in those articles. Perhaps a single sentence. Good luck trying to add more than that. wumbolo ^^^ 20:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BLP1E says we can have articles on people notable for only one event if the event is significant and their role is significant. Press coverage is suggesting that will be the case for this new, bizarre development in his life. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The press coverage you linked seems to actually suggest that the event was debunked much before it even happened. WP:NOTNEWS might not even apply, because this is a non-event, if we go that way. wumbolo ^^^ 21:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (responding to ping) This is quite a different article from its last two iterations. It is focused on the one current event and I agree that per WP:BLP1E deletion is warranted. As I was trying to find sources, I ran across this quote from a Bloomberg opinion piece: "I must say that I liked Jacob Wohl a lot more when he was a comical fringe figure of the financial world than I do now that he’s a comical fringe figure of alt-right politics." A fringe figure is an appropriate description for a subject not meeting notability standards. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above this is a minor fringe figure who has not been convicted of the political allegations and the financial misdemeaners were very commonplace unfortunately. There is a saying that all publicity is good publicity and this character certainly does not warrant it for his WP:BLP1E charades, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Even prior to the Mueller thing, he had plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Web, News, so this is not a WP:BLP1E instance. He is a noted "pro-Trump internet troll" (New York Times) and "alt-right influencer" (Wired). He is notable as a conspiracy theorist and as a fraudulent financier. He is also currently under investigation by the FBI. This new article, unlike the previous iterations written by SPAs, is devoid of promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Misleading, apparently bad-faith nomination. The nominator never participated in the previous AfDs (and presumably also never saw those articles), and this new article is in no way promotional at all. The nominator nonetheless falsely claimed this new article is "strongly promotional" and immediately pinged participants in the old AfDs, in an apparent effort to get them to react to the false claim in his nomination rather than to actually read the new article or do due diligence. Softlavender (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, can't improve an article if it doesn't exist. X1\ (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I initially recommended deleting an earlier version of this article in April, 2017 but withdrew my !vote after Icewhiz expanded and improved the article considerably. See WP:HEYMANN. Now, we have a new round of significant coverage of Wohl from the Daily Beast, the Atlantic, GQ, Vox, CNN, Slate, NBC and so on. I considered him borderline notable a year and a half ago, but he is definitely notable now. This article should be kept and the useful content from the previously deleted versions should be added back into the current article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Cullen that the the useful content from the previously deleted versions should be added back into the current article. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Only notable for his political stunt of the day, which will be forgotten within a week. Wikipedia should not give him a soapbox. — JFG ^talk 01:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, his political stunts go way back and have been reported extensively on RS prior to this Mueller hoax. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage here, plus purely fringe individuals don't usually appear as a subject on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live! or receive in-depth coverage in Vanity Fair. Even read excessively strictly, he meets the GNG policy anyways. Isingness (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In 2017 we has an edit war between a promo account and other SPAs who were trying to highlight some of Wohl's many exploits (and we had a handful - running foul of the NFA, using Instagram models to lure clients, financial training courses that included IIRC hookers, his business dealings at age 17, claims around Rachel G. Fox, real estate, politics, and a bunch of other stuff) - all this received coverage (all be it local and in financial sites for various schemes) - and at last AfD I argued SIGCOV - in any event even back then it was not a 1E. The Muller thing obviously adds a whole bunch of new coverage - and only adds to notability here. I will also note this is a high profile and "noisy" individual - we will probably see yet more coverage. I do think there are balance issues in the present article but deletion is not cleanup.Icewhiz (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep soibangla (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG. Issues of balance can be addressed through editing. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this article has the potential to be of service to users trying to keep track of and understand events and persons associated with the Mueller investigation. KConWiki (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I could NEVER, EVER disagree with Muboshgu or Cullen328. Having said that, I disagree with Muboshgu and Cullen328. I thought he was non-notable as a person before, and his involvement with this scam (ALLEGED scam, whatever) doesn't add much. We don't need an article on him to solidify our understanding of current political events, and to the extent that this is a noteworthy thing (all the more noteworthy since NOTNEWS has gone by the wayside), it can be covered in any of the two million articles associated with Trump, Mueller, etc., with a redirect for those who seek him. Nor do I see that recent coverage has added much to our understanding of this person and his biography--let me note, for instance, that the Vox article "nails" him in one and a half sentences: "a 20-year-old conservative who’s most famous for sending speedy sycophantic replies to Trump’s tweets and making implausible, factually dubious claims. He also ran some shady hedge funds." We can do that too, and we should, because there simply isn't that much to tell him. So, delete -- and/or redirect, if you like. Drmies (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will NEVER, EVER give in to Cullen328 and his tyranny of "coverage in reliable sources", EVER. Having said that, dude's got a point. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are more than enough reliable sources covering the subject to satisfy the GNG. If the article lacks balance or needs editing then edit it, that's what we do here. AfD is not for cleanup. EDIT: I also note there is apparently no puffery or promotion in this article, and it appears to me to simply state was the sources say. EnPassant (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Multiple news outlets are reporting this guy's involvement with a scheme to frame Robert Mueller for sexual assault. He wasn't notable before, but the way this is going, he's notable now. Lordbedo (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: it's easy to say "passes GNG", pointing at a half dozen or a dozen articles, but what we really need is significant discussion of the subject. What we have now is tidbits and involvement in a scandal. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to note: Drmies, please consider the NBC news article called Jacob Wohl, 20, far-right conspiracy theorist, gets a moment in spotlight with Mueller plot: The Trump supporter, once billed as a teenage financial guru, has a history of schemes. That is a 27 paragraph long article that covers his whole "career" in detail. Certainly, that is the significant discussion that you are looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cullen328, I hate to say "that changes matters" but that changes matters. Can I pretend it's Brussels sprouts, which I pretend do not exist, and then it will all go away? Drmies (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Pretty much a slam dunk keep, given substantial coverage of the person by multiple reliable sources, that are not only covering the latest scandal, but delving into his background. --Rob (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess we should keep based on the fact that of course we are going to have an article on this person. He has entered history now. The whole affair is something some non-zero number of people will want to learn about even 100 years from now. OTOH I'd be OK with cutting it back to a stub for a while on BLP grounds. There's no super hurry here. And the hedge fund stuff is sub-notable. It is useful for answering the question "what is this entity" tho. Herostratus (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This guy's become notable. He's now the subject of tories like this one[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (I nominated this). This has spawned a lot of coverage. Good prediction skills by early keep !voters. wumbolo ^^^ 22:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This fellow has now applied his talents in multiple fields so it's no longer WP:BLP1E. It will be interesting to follow his accomplishments as he moves into, say, the art world or medicine. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or particle physics. Sky's the limit. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 3 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Chowdhury[edit]

Titan Chowdhury (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)

Notability? Didn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMBIO. This article is created by a sockpuppet. Anyway, the article is also Wikipedia:TOOSOON. I didn't find anything notable in bengali & english (Only some passing mentions are available). আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Not a notable person. He does not have any notable work.--Rocky Masum (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RockyMasum:, for future reference, !votes here are prefixed with/indicated by bolded text rather than a template such as ((agree)). --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Sdmarathe (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because she fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, fair and simple. Even the only reference in the article is not a significant coverage which accounts towards notability. No notable multiple roles as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 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. Any redirect to a list after she's included on it is an editorial decision (she isn't currently part of List of American supercentenarians). Sandstein 08:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan[edit]

Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan (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 oldster. A couple of obituaries and GRG statistics are just routine coverage, and the desperate attempt to fluff this up by sticking in links to completely unrelated articles about other Puerto Rican people shows that there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the documentation she had proving her age claim. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Once the trivia about longevity stats is removed, there remains nothing of substance about this person's life. Her entry in the various "oldest people" tables is enough to convey the only thing that she is notable for, i.e. her exceptional longevity. — JFG ^talk 23:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could people please refrain from using ageist derogatory terms like oldster. It is disrepectful. I have no opinion whether or not this article is kept or deleted, but this ongoing use of a debasing term on several of the AfD is unencyclopedic and unprofessional, if not bigoted. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, put a sock in it; it's just an informal term. "Unencyclopedic"? A meaningless term, and besides this discussion isn't part of the encyclopedia. "Unprofessional"? We're not professionals. "Bigoted"? Get a grip. EEng 03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear User:EEng What is the "it" that you refer to, please, where I should put the item of footware? I'm sorry if I misunderstand, but I thought this was an encyclopedia and that the AfD was public. Sorry. Forgive me if I misunderstood. Yes it is true that "oldster" seems like a bigoted statement from my cultural standpoint, and I now understand that it is not derogatory from your standpoint. What is the item that you are suggesting for me to grip? Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 04:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Netherzone:

• The "it" is wherever you need to put the footwear (not "footware", which would be something like items of commerce made from feet, I guess) to restrain yourself from spouting further nonsense.
• You do misunderstand. Article space constitutes the encyclopedia we're working on (if we weren't wasting our time on this absurd debate over imagined disrespect, of course); this is project space.
• This has nothing to do with "cultural standpoints" (apparently a phrase meaning "I freely assign significance to things according to personal whim") but rather with you not doing your homework. Some terms have ambiguous meanings or shades of connotation, but this isn't one of them. Since you're a "University professor and administrator" I would think you'd know how to look things up on your own, but since I'm in a generous mood here're the OED definitions for oldster:

1. Nautical. A midshipman who has served for over four years. Cf. youngster

2. A person who is no longer a youth or novice; an elderly or experienced person.

Now you tell me: in a discussion of persons 110 years of age or older, what's "bigoted" about "no longer a youth... elderly or experienced"?

• The item you should grip is reality; that should help you release your ridiculous pretended sensitivity over made-up offenses.

Anything else I can clarify for you, Mr. or Ms. "cultural worker" (and I'm trying not to laugh at that as a label self-applied)? Next time, as my junior high school shop teacher used to say, make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth (or pen, or keyboard) in gear, and especially before spamming the same knee-jerk scolding into three (THREE!) different AfDs after apparently taking zero (ZERO!) time to find out what you're talking about. EEng 15:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge to an appropriate list. Article even more vacuous than usual, especially after you discount the history of Puerto Rican education and the fascinating (and dubious) information that two people were "interviewed together" for the census a hundred years ago. EEng 03:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion. There is enough sourced biographical information in the article to support a merge. Cunard (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored post removed by mistake. Cunard (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE. Majority of this article is longevity trivia that someone was thought to be oldest until her her age was verified (there's an entire paragraph that screams original research about how her age was verified). Other than that, she was born, got married, adopted her nephew, got old and then died. Removing the longevity trivia and the padded fluff (interviewed for the 1920 census and early Puerto Rican edumacation) and there's nothing that can't easily be handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I find it intriguing that she was able to live so long after being edumacated. EEng 15:29, 5 November 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes[edit]

List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "List of PlayStation 2 games with alternative display modes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Just a list of games and what display size they are compatible with. Another similar article has been removed for the same reasons [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GameCube games with alternate display modes] Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Such trivia fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If significant, then reliable sources would cover this, which they really don't. In short, same rationale as the previous AfD had. This may be useful information (however, WP:USEFUL) and the concept of display modes may have sourcing (however, WP:NOTINHERITED), but this doesn't establish stand-alone WP:LISTN-like reasoning. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unsourced technical gamecruft. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:00, 6 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox games with alternate display modes[edit]

List of Xbox games with alternate display modes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(Find video game sources: "List of Xbox games with alternate display modes" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Just a list of games and what display size they are compatible with. Another similar article has been removed for the same reasons Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GameCube games with alternate display modes Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. Such trivia fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. If significant, then reliable sources would cover this, which they really don't. In short, same rationale as the previous AfD had. This may be useful information (however, WP:USEFUL) and the concept of display modes may have sourcing (however, WP:NOTINHERITED), but this doesn't establish stand-alone WP:LISTN-like reasoning. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Does it hurt anyone? Is it inaccurate? No? Then leave it be unless you're some sort of busybody nudnik just looking for "letter of the law" infractions to lord over everyone because you have nothing better to do.2601:40C:8300:1D35:B555:FD45:D23C:3029 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There are better forums for game guides and catalogues. We don't know if it is accurate either, given there are no inline citations. Ajf773 (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 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 Convert to disambiguation page. Sandstein 08:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Curriculum (England and Wales)[edit]

National Curriculum (England and Wales) (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)

Duplicates National Curriculum for England - the two articles should be merged. Per this 1996 source, the England and Wales national curricula were never the same: "The 1988 Education Reform Act... established a separate Curriculum Council for Wales to advise the Secretary of State and this resulted in the development of a distinctly Welsh curriculum for schools... This research... follows... the development of the Curriculum Cymreig (Welsh Curriculum) from the 1988 Act to 1st June, 1996". Our article National Curriculum for Wales covers this separate topic very well. Algarve1233 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Merges should be proposed using WP:MERGEPROP. Matt14451 (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put it here because this article had a previous deletion discussion, which was also in effect a merger. Because this is the second nomination I felt it should have a full review. Algarve1233 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's fine, just pointing out that there's a specific procedure for proposed merges. Matt14451 (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or convert to a dabpage. Education is a devolved matter. England and Wales each has its own National Curriculum, so that this attempt to combine themis doomed to failure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to a dabpage as per above - Both articles now exist however "National Curriculum England and Wales" is still commonly used[3] so it would make sense to create it as a dabpage. –Davey2010^Talk

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

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

The result was keep. The refs have been discussed at length and the noms interpretation of them not accepted, new refs were also added. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Lancut Leibovitz[edit]

Tami Lancut Leibovitz (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 something almost funny about a self-professed etiquette expert paying to have an article written about herself, in violation of perhaps not the letter of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but certainly the spirit of WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As for the letter of the policies and guidelines, the article contains a number of claims that cannot be verified by independent, reliable sources, and the coverage in some of the sources is not exactly significant. The BBC calls her "one of the country's leading image gurus", but fails to say much about her. I don't think the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. Vexations (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vexations - Thank you for your Comments. Tami Lancut Leibovits is a notable person in her field as mentioned by the BBC. I've noted from your comments that additional verified, independent, reliable sources are needed. Besides the BBC, I've listed "Ynet" and "Haaretz" which are very important and significant news websites in Israel. I've also added as a reference a video Interview from the "Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation" (Hebrew subtitles available). Following your comments I've added another reference from Globes - a well known business Newspaper in Israel. I think that by the above references the requirements of the WP:GNG are met. If you believe that still additional resources are needed I'll add some more. Please let me know if you find any other issue in this article that you think should be fixed. Thanks again for your comments. Arielinson (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson,

• [4] is not about the subject, but dedicates three sentences to her. That is not significant coverage.

The BBC coverage is a source for the fact that TLL is a person of significance. It is clearly mentioned there.the source is significant.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, "significant coverage" refers to the source as the content of the article, not the author or the publisher. The BBC is considered a reliable source, but not everything they publish is "significant coverage". In this case, the BBC, a reliable source provided a trivial mention. Vexations (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [5] I don't read Hebrew, but it looks like the only mention of the subject is a quote by her.

This Hebrew reference is saying that TLL is a consultant for business executives. The source is major Israeli newspaper. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, So it really has nothing to offer other than "Tami Lancut-Leibowitz, an image and communications consultant for executives and businesspeople". That's not in-depth coverage. And it just repeats what's already been sourced to other sources. Adding references for the sake of increasing the number of references, especially in a paid article is unnecessary. Use only the best sources. If there is a better source that supports this claim, use that one. Vexations (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] more quotes by the subject.

the quote "image consultant guru" is not a quote by the subject. It shows that the subject is of significance. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, I was referring to the quotes provided by her. You seem to think that "image consultant and etiquette guru Tami Lancut Leibovitz, who has become a devoted viewer of the Knesset Channel in preparation of the new role and has been able to map the lawmakers' key problems" establishes that the subject is notable. It doesn't. It merely asserts that she is an etiquette guru. There's no analysis of what she's done, what kind of change she has effected or how her work has transformed Israeli society for example. Merely saying someone is something doesn't make it so. You also need to show it. Vexations (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [7] is a video of the subject appearing on a television show

Indeed. the TV inteview from a major Israeli news channel shows that the subject is of significance thus the WP:GNG are met and the article should not be deleted.Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [8] is bylined DPA. I'm not surewho DPA refers to: Deutsche Presse-Agentur? but it's a promotional article that offers no critical assessment or analysis of the subjects contributions to thinking about etiquette.

again this article was published in a major Israeli Newspaper. It is a reliable source. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, yes, we generally consider Haaretz a reliable source. That doesn't mean they don't occasionally publish material that offers no critical assessment or analysis, which is why my objection. Vexations (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [9] is a blog, not a relibalesouce.

If you beleive this source is not needed it can be deleted. there is another reliable source instead. but I think it should be kept as another source even if it might be considered less credible. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [10] is by the subject

I dont see a reason removing this source if othere reliable significant sources exist to support the article. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arielinson, as pointed out above, we prefer to use the best available secondary source. If such a source exists, it should be used in stead of the primary source. Vexations (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, there is no in-depth, significant coverage that is about her by independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a "dpa" logo at the bottom of that article mentioned in bullet #5 above, and it matches the logo shown in the article about Deutsche Presse-Agentur. In the middle of that article I see "— Advertisement —", but I'm not sure whether this means that the whole article is an advertisement or not. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Following your helpful comments I've added another source which is an in -depth significant coverage about TLL by another reliable source - "Makor Rishon." Yet another major news site in Israel. I've also responded above to your comments about the sources. I think all sources shows that the subject of this article is of significance and thus this article should not be deleted from that WP:GNG reason. Arielinson (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations First of all thank you for your comments and for your help in editing the article. I've noticed that next to the statement "The institute provides consultation services on etiquette for local and international clients such as business executives and government officials." you added "not in the citation given". In the citations I've listed it is clearly mentioned that TLL trained business executives and government officials. It clearly support this fact. Therefore I think that "not in the citation given" should be removed. Please let me know your thoughts about this. Thanks. Arielinson (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is irritatingly promotional at its core. Yes, the subject has been mentioned in some articles about etiquette, but as best I can tell, the articles were focused primarily on the topic of etiquette rather than on the person who is the subject of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BarrelProof thank you for your comment. I did my best to make this article non promotional and list only facts about the person. If you find promotional content please let me know where it is and I'll delete it myself. I think every aspect in this article is important biographic data about this person. Following your comment saying the articles are mostly about etiquette I've added another source in Hebrew which is dedicated to the person in this Wikipedia article. Arielinson (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As time has passed since my comment above was made, the content of the article has evolved, and the discussion here has included enough additional information that I no longer think the article should be deleted. I therefore have struck through my prior "delete" recommendation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Tami Lancut Leibovitz is a notable person in Israel, well know for her etiquette expertise. Wrote few books at the subject and lectures. I added a link to the article about her in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Ovedc (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Leibovitz is a well known person. Also as a Wiki-woman I think that there are not enough articles about significant Israeli women. Keep. Laliv g (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laliv g, This discussion is about whether the subject of the article is notable. Notability, unfortunately, has a very specific and somewhat idiosyncratic meaning in Wikipedia. Famous, well-known or important are not the same as notable. Please see WP:N. The fact that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia has no bearing on the notability of this particular subject. What we're trying to determine in this discussion is if there is sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article about the subject. If you think such coverage exists, but is not currently in the article, you should feel free to add it to the article or mention it here. Notability is determined by the existence, not necessarily the inclusion, of such sources. Vexations (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations. I think many resources and sufficient significant coverage in independent, reliable sources have been provided in the article to support the fact that this person is notable. According to WP:BIO "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;". As far as I can see, multiple resources have been provided to show that . Arielinson (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Not sure if these contribute to the subject's notability or not, but here are some links to articles I found on Newspapers.com: [11][12][13]. Also see lengthy interview: "Ilene R. Prusher. (January 8, 1998). MAKING ISRAEL SAFE FOR THE CIVILIZED. The Jerusalem Report." I'd be curious what coverage exists (or not) in Hebrew language sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thsmi002, Two of those are by the same author, Charles W. Holmes, and their content is nearly identical. What I have an issue with is that they don't actually say much about the subject. If I were to try to summarize what the article says about her, I can find: she is soft-spoken; she aims to teach Israelis good manners; she attributes the lack of good manners to the fact that Israel is a country with a high proportion of immigrants that lacks a collective culture; she is the author of three books; she operates a training facility where she teaches etiquette. That's it. Vexations (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thsmi002 Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I think the coverage shows that the subject of this article is a person of significance. (Since the reason listed for deletion here is the notability of the person.)I have added one of your links as a resource to support the fact that she was an interior designer at her early life. (since "citation needed" was listed over there). I also added the Boston globe article to show that TLL trained business executive and politician as mentioned in the article. Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leibovitz appears to be the president of the Israeli Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs per [14]. Thsmi002 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thsmi002, Thank you for this comment. I've added that to her bio.Arielinson (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The cited sources discuss the subject of the article substantially. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No need to troll this article with petty peckering. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:47, 3 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Logan Moore[edit]

Joshua Logan Moore (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 notable. Former child actor with a small selection of credits and the only sources are IMDb and a passing mention on futoncritic. The article has been notability and blp tagged for nearly 8 years and no sources have been added. CallyMc (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an exaustve directory of everyone who ever had a credited role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as a non-notable actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:19, 4 November 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 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of landlocked U.S. states[edit]

List of landlocked U.S. states (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 article is being nominated for deletion because it generally lacks any reliable references, it uses a categorization system (singly, doubly?) that is confusing, and doesn't provide the reader with any usable information. The inherent problem with this list article is that it does not provide context as to what exactly is a landlocked U.S. state and provide backing as to what is or is not a landlocked state with a reference. See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_31#Category:Landlocked_U.S._states, category up for deletion. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is supported by but a single source, of questionable reliability (one “Victor Kiprop”, at worldatlas.com). An online search turns up no official, or for that matter any, RS that adopts or expands on the concept of “landlocked U.S. states”. In addition to the sourcing / OR problem, the demarcations set forth in the article are contradicted by both common sense and reliably-sourced facts: For example, the Great Lakes are deemed to be “landlocked” yet they are open to ocean-going vessels by way of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and such vessels routinely transport goods in and out of the freshwater ports of the Great Lakes. To describe states such as Minnesota - or Michigan, which is literally surrounded by water - as “landlocked” simply because they don’t border on salt water, is nonsensical. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—per above, this concept just isn't apparently supported in sources. Imzadi 1979 → 18:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTTRIVIA and lacks reliable sources to make it a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or weak delete: Either reliable sources need to be found, and the page revamped to be more easily understood, or possibly deleted. However, I don't want it deleted. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under the contingency that more reliable sources are found.--AirportExpert (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
• Keep - this list is making an interesting contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of geography of the United States. Vorbee (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:IDONTCARE. Ajf773 (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks reliable sources. And please people, "It think this is interesting, so we should keep it" is not a valid keep reason. Everything is here because someone thought it interesting FOARP (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article does not provide reliable sources, sorry! Alex-h (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sourcing is sparse online, but I added a reference to the article. Don't care which way this one goes. SportingFlyer talk 10:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RoySmith. For instance, here's Arizona: ^[1] SportingFlyer talk 01:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Geography cruft. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as cruft. This is not a notable concept as 56% of states are included. I can't even imagine how anyone would find that interesting but that doesn't matter because it is not notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Doubly landlocked isn't a confusing category, it's a geographical term that applies to nations or states that are two or more territories away from an ocean or major body of water, whereas nations such as Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan fit that term. Per WP:PRESERVE, I believe I can fix the article to avoid a deletion and solve the problems in this article. Landlocked states is an important category that fits properly into several U.S. geography categories. The category is notable because a quick google search turns up several results, many of which I will add to this article. After I fix this up, I would like to see a relist per WP:HEY. Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was unable to find any meaningful sourcing for this concept, as applied to US States, other than that one Worldatlas.com article. If you can find other RSs, please add them. But take care that when you are adding sources, you are not simply adding in websites that mirror or expressly derive from this very article. I've just removed a Revolvy.com source that suffered that defect. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. www.worldatlas.com seems like a sufficiently reliable source. And, certainly, you can verify each individual state, for example, Utah.^[2] -- RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A single source, of marginal quality, bolstered by synthetically cobbling together passing references one-by-one from (it would appear) up to 50 other unrelated sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG. The only source for this compilation is a one-off article, which has garnered no other amplification, corroboration or commentary. And, as commenters above have noted, the underlying concept of "landlocked", which is descriptive, politically determinative and meaningful when applied to nations themselves (not to mention abundantly sourced, e.g., NY Times, The Economist, The World Bank, United Nations) - is trivial when applied to political subdivisions within a nation. JohnInDC (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "landlocked U.S. states" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. Kiprop, Victor (2018-05-08). "The Doubly Landlocked US States". World Atlas. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     Doubly landlocked states refer to the states that have to cross the boundaries of two other states to access the nearest gulf, bay, sea, or ocean. Of the fifty states of the United States, ten are doubly landlocked, 17 states and DC are singly landlocked, while Nebraska is the only triply landlocked state.

  2. Yoder, Rick; Harding, David. Nebraska Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-7627-4683-5. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     A state is considered landlocked if it is not bordered on any side by a ... and body of water (except rivers). Eleven states—Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—qualify as doubly landlocked, which means they are surrounded by landlocked states. The emphasis is on “land.” But Nebraska is the only state that can claim to be trebly landlocked, which means all the states surrounding it (Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, and Wyoming) are doubly landlocked.

  3. O'Neill, Junella Pusbach (1999). The Great New England Sea Serpent: An Account of Unknown Creatures Sighted by Many Respectable Persons Between 1638 and the Present Day. Camden, Maine: Down East Books. ISBN 978-0-89272-461-1. OCLC 41299254. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     In North America, some of the best examples of fossilized plesiosaurs have been discovered in an area that was once a large inland sea (the Western Interior Seal stretching from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico and encompassing the now landlocked states of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas as well as parts of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Minnesota, and Iowa.

  4. Hutton, Thomas (2009). "Energy Policy Act §216:A Power Worth Preserving" (PDF). Environmental Law Institute. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     BLM lands are located overwhelmingly west of the Mississippi, including much of the arid, landlocked states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, and very little of the coastal states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

  5. Wulfsberg, Rolf M.; Lang, Darryl A. (1974). Recreational Boating in the Continental United States, in 1973: The Nationwide Boating Survey. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Transportation. p. 25. OCLC 973421254. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     However, it is notable that California, Rhode Island, and Texas- -all states which are located on maior bodies of water—had low densities, while the landlocked states of Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, and Mississippi were far above the national average of 39.7 boats per 1,000 residents.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are sources that discuss landlocked US states (provided to show that "landlocked US states" is a widely used term):
  1. Bathroom Readers' Institute (2017). Uncle John's Old Faithful 30th Anniversary Bathroom Reader. San Diego: Portable Press. ISBN 978-1-68412-126-7. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     Nebraska
     
     Background: In 1931 the governor of Nebraska, Charles Bryan, left the state for a couple of weeks on vacation. While he was gone the lieutenant governor, Ted W. Metcalfe, was in charge. Metcalfe, a Democrat, was frustrated that Bryan, a Republican, had not left much for him to do, and Metcalfe's friends were bugging him for appointments to state government positions. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Metcalfe invented the Great Navy of the State of Nebraska (a play on the fact that Nebraska is the only triply landlocked state in the Union, with at least three states between it and the ocean in any direction), and commissioned two dozen of his friends as admirals. Since then, Metcalfe's little jokes has gone on to become the highest honor a governor—aka the "Chief Admiral"—can bestow.

  2. Daniels, Jeff (2018-02-01). "Philanthropist Susie Buffett to help launch Navy's newest littoral combat ship into fleet". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     “The commissioning of the USS Omaha is a fitting tribute to Omaha’s history and people,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., in a statement. “Even if we’re the only triply landlocked state, whenever the USS Omaha is called to defend America, the crew should know that grateful Nebraskans are behind them.”

     This article is about Ben Sasse's remarks about the launching of USS Omaha.
  3. "Nebraska Governor Revokes Honor Given to 2 Academics". U.S. News & World Report. Associated Press. 2018-02-06. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     Admiralships to the Nebraska Navy are a lighthearted award often granted to people who are retiring, changing jobs, or have reached a milestone in their lives.

     The honor is a joking reference to the fact that Nebraska is the nation's only triply landlocked state and has no navy or seas to defend. Admiralships are granted at the governor's discretion and can only be given when the nominee or nominator is a Nebraska resident.

  4. Olya, Gabrielle (2018-09-28). "The 50 best places to retire across middle America". MSN. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     Living along the coasts tends to come with higher living costs, so those looking to save money in retirement should consider moving to a landlocked state.

  5. James, Tom (2017-04-19). "Rising seas could flood middle America with people from the coasts". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     Even landlocked states such as Arizona and Wyoming could see significant increases in population because of coastal migration by 2100, and may be unprepared to handle the surge, said the analysis from a University of Georgia researcher.

     ...

     While a movement of residents from low-lying coastal regions to adjacent inland communities will likely occur, Hauer said that according to his model, even landlocked states such as Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming will see an influx.

  6. Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: An Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4833-0593-6. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     Deep in America's heartland, the landlocked state of Iowa has been a central player in American agriculture since shortly after the Louisiana Purchase.

  7. "Iowa's Crab Wins Bay Race". The New York Times. United Press International. 1983-09-04. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     Hawkeye, a hard-shelled crab representing the landlocked state of Iowa, skittered past 22 competitors to win the 24th Governor's Cup race today by a claw.

  8. "Warning Signs Say High E. Coli Levels in Lake Macbride". KRNA. 2018-07-17. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The article notes:

     In the landlocked state of Iowa, there aren't many options when it comes to cooling off in the summertime. Unless you're lucky enough to have a swimming pool in your backyard.

  9. Quaratiello, Arlene Rodda (2004). Rachel Carson: A Biography. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 13. ISBN 0-313-32388-7. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

     The book notes:

     At the age of twenty-two, Rachel Carson, who had never been more than sixteen miles from her home, left the landlocked state of Pennsylvania to see the ocean that she had dreamt about for most of her life.

  10. Santella, Chris (2013). Why I Fly Fish: Passionate Anglers on the Pastime's Appeal and How It Has Shaped Their Lives. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang. ISBN 978-1-61312-460-4. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      It was a Navy posting in the decidedly landlocked state of Idaho that introduced Captain Ed Nicholson to fly fishing.

  11. Whiting, Anthony; Schulze, Robin G. (1995). The Web of Friendship: Marianne Moore and Wallace Stevens. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press. p. 97. ISBN 0-472-10578-7. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      Moving inland from the vast ocean to the Susquehanna river, Moore withdraws to the landlocked state of Pennsylvania, where both she and Stevens grew up ...

  12. Lyons, Ben. "Running the River Out to the Sea: Cruise West in the Pacific Northwest". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      Planning a cruise but want to go somewhere different? Forget Antarctica, Libya, or the island of St Helena, how about booking a cruise to Idaho?

      Yes, Idaho, as in the landlocked state of Idaho.

  13. Marino, Rick (2017-11-15). "Need an escape? Puerto Peñasco offers beachfront living and coastal cuisine". The Desert Sun. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      When you think about the landlocked state of Arizona, the beach really doesn’t come to mind, does it?

  14. King, Grant (2018-01-30). "Look Back 31 years ago: 'Ocean Front Property' by George Strait". Country Thang Daily. Archived from the original on 2018-11-10. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      But, to be the bigger lie in a series of falsehood was the geographical impossibility of ocean-front property in the landlocked state of Arizona.

  15. Worldwatch Institute (2005). State of the World 2005: Global Security (22 ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-844-07162-3. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      In 1934, the landlocked state of Arizona commissioned a navy (it consisted of one ferryboat) and sent its state militia to stop a dam and diversion project on the Colorado River.

  16. Bailey, Ronald H. (1977). The Home Front: U.S.A. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8094-2479-5. OCLC 779284784. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The article notes:

      In the landlocked state of Arizona, far removed from the Atlantic or the Pacific oceans, residents fretted over the prospect of trouble from another direction. "We've got the Mexican border to worry about," one said.

  17. Cerveny, Randall S. (2009). Weather's Greatest Mysteries Solved!. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-59102-720-1. Retrieved 2018-11-10.

      The book notes:

      One can still find fossils of sharks and clams in the center of the present-day landlocked states of Nebraska and Kansas.

  Cunard (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I fretted above about synthesizing a list out of passing mentions from 50 unrelated sources, but it looks like the figure may be closer to 150. The concept is trivial, the mentions are trivial, and more sources to support synthesis doesn't make something reliably sourced! The problem becomes even clearer when one contemplates how to meaningfully include these offhand mentions as actual refs in support of a comprehensive “List” article. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Thank you User:Cunard for the collection of sources, which is handy to have perhaps, but sourcing on non-controversial facts does not need to be extensive. It cannot seriously be disputed whether a given state borders on an ocean or not; excessive footnoting (all footnoting?) should be removed as a matter of editing. This is a basic, gateway, child-accessible type article like those about flags and number of colors in them, which have also come up for deletion (and have been "Kept"). There is apparently some fundamental disagreement about what is encyclopedic. In my opinion, these all are basic to allowing children and adults into understanding about our world. Including learning about the encyclopedia works. These are highly encyclopedic, even central. No purpose is served by deleting such. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 10 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lockley[edit]

Thomas Lockley (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)

Was going to CSD this but not sure how promotional this really is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this, but I don't think this is entirely promotional, it is about an author (me) who has several books. It is also linked to other pages including one which cites one of my books (the only book on the subject in the world.) I have tried to tone it down by removing a reference to good reviews in Japan. If you have any other ideas for making it more objective, please edit or let me know. Thank you in advance for considering the article

• Delete - Regardless of the fact that this is an autobiography, the issue is notability. There is simply a lack of independent and reliable sources, leading to a failure to meet WP:GNG. In addition, there is no indication that subject meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand the points about COI, my apologies for wasting your time. Thanks for your contributions to this section and the stirling job you do for wikipedia in general. Long may it live. Best wishes, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottoritom (talk • contribs) 21:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His main work is not even out yet. This is at best way to premature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON for this not-yet-notable author of a not-yet-notable book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 5 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Pieper[edit]

Paul B. Pieper (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)

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are only providing quotations from the subject regarding religion and acting as a spokesperson (which are primary in nature), minute passing mentions and name checks. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the basic notability criteria. Agree with NA1000 about the essay and on top of that this is a random use of it because it does not mention the general authorities and as such is a Synth by the keep !voter. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:BASIC and WP:GNG are not satisfied. WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing, and the references in the article are either passing mentions, barely connected to the subject or dead links. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 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. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin R. Duncan[edit]

Kevin R. Duncan (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 non-notable subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist. WP:BEFORE searches only provide quotations from the subject regarding religion and acting as a spokesperson (which are primary in nature), fleeting passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, primary sources present in the article and found in searches are not usable to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

• It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
• Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Kevin R. Duncan, not some other subject.
• Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
• There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein to back up assertions of notability, which at this point, are all based upon personal opinion, rather than guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing the basic notability criteria. Agree with NA1000 about the essay and on top of that this is a random use of it because it does not mention the general authorities and as such is a Synth by the IP user. They say they are like bishops (according to whom?) so should be seen as notable but as this is an essay that deosn't mention them I can't see how it can be used. --Dom from Paris (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Like NorthAmerica said, I hope admin will look thorough into the keep votes instead of closing this as a pure no consensus AfD. Firstly, like it was already said, WP:BISHOPS is not a guideline, therefore the keep votes are not using the things right here. This subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, no coverage is present in the article or in BEFORE search. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:54, 10 November 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. Sandstein 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Manson[edit]

Ted Manson (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 minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Previously deleted after PROD expired, and article was recreated. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete His only significant role is of Psychopathia Sexualis (film) which is not enough to meet WP:NACTOR, and the subject has no coverage in secondary sources to pass WP:GNG (I was not able to find anything really. Overall, not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, i googled him and looked on news, there is more about a NZ philanthropist with this name. Szzuk (talk) 19:28, 10 November 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 Blurb, Inc.. Agreed that the article should be redirected, whether via a failure to be notable or from (past) excessive promotion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BookSmart[edit]

BookSmart (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 think that the various and changing software tools of Blurb for creating books can be described in the main article Blurb, Inc.. Apparently, they're phasing out this particular application, as the page http://www.blurb.com/booksmart points to "other free, easy-to-use tools to create beautiful books". But I'm not proposing articles about BookWright and their other current tools, as I do not think these have any notability independently of the Blurb platform. The (rather old) articles in the "References" section are more about the offerings of Blurb in general, mentioning the then-current software BookSmart, but not focussing on the latter. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Blurb, Inc. It looks to have been created with promotional intent; on the other hand, it's been here since 2006 and the article creator hasn't been here since 2007. So I don't think it's worth the effort of deleting. Deb (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Blurb, Inc., not sure how you found this, but definitely not notable. Isingness (talk) 02:24, 1 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS[edit]

Transatlantic Partners Against AIDS (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)

Only reference is their own press release from 2005. Doesnt seem to exist now. No real evidence of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing here except minor coverage some years ago. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sdmarathe (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: source searches show nothing of note, no significant coverage or the like, so it's a failure of organisation notability guidelines. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 18:47, 9 November 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. Sandstein 09:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sayman[edit]

Michael Sayman (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)

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP conditions for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - being the youngest Product Manager at Google, and the youngest software engineer at Google, surely makes him notable. Vorbee (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Vorbee - That information isn't even sourced, and isn't a note towards notability, unless sources comment on it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Youngest anything at Google does not make a person notable without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – This could be a WP:BLP1E situation, but the notion above that significant coverage doesn't exist (e.g. "without a lot of significant sourcing, which does not appear to exist") is incorrect. Below are some sources that were found on the first two pages of search results using the Google News link atop this discussion. Are people even bothering to look for sources? It's entirely unclear.

Regarding the nomination itself, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, and the article presently has some reliable source references, so it's not qualifiable for deletion via being an unsourced BLP.

Regarding the sources below, some provide some interview content, but also biographical analysis/coverage about the subject as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CallyMc (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding all of the "per nom" !votes herein, check out WP:PERNOM. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 9 November 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. Sandstein 08:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WAAV, Inc.[edit]

WAAV, Inc. (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 our notability guidelines for businesses. This passed as keep in 2007, albeit weakly, but all references were removed without explanation in this revision in 2007. I've since restored them, but I don't think that they represent the significant coverage the GNG calls for, as they either mention the company simply in passing or contain routine coverage of a product or a product line launch. schetm (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I opened the first 4 refs and they didn't return anything remotely close to satisfying ncorp. Szzuk (talk) 08:54, 11 November 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. Close as consensus that it passes LISTN with the subjects of the list having been discussed as a combined group (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards[edit]

List of celebrities who own wineries and vineyards (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)

Trivia. Many celebrities own certain types of property or endorse certain products. "List of celebrities who own X" is not a good encyclopedia topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a good nomination as unencyclopedic and trivial are arguments to avoid. The topic passes WP:LISTN as entire books are written about it such as Celebrity Vineyards and it's easy to find more coverage such as Ten of the top celebrity wines. WP:PRESERVE therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew. I was expecting to find just a basic A-Z list, with a few cites, but this is a half-decent article with some prose on a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can see where the delete argument is coming from however the article easily passes WP:GNG and WP:LISTN in my opinion, I would go so far as to say I like the article and found it really interesting read. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 1 November 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. A very scant discussion. But the arguments for deletion are compelling and based on the core policy WP:V. The only argument for keeping is a reference to WP:BISHOPS, which as an essay has no significance at all in a deletion discussion, and even mentions that LDS religious leaders aren't the same thing as bishops.I therefore have to close this as "delete" based on strength of argument. Sandstein 09:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin W. Pearson[edit]

Kevin W. Pearson (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. Coverage in independent, reliable sources, per WP:BEFORE searches, is limited to sermons and quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature), meager passing mentions and name checks. Furthermore, the entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

• It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
• Its thesis is unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Kevin W. Pearson, not some other subject.
• Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
• There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 November 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. This is the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin W. Pearson. Sandstein 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence E. Corbridge[edit]

Lawrence E. Corbridge (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 does not meet WP:BASIC. The one reliable source in the article, from the 2009 Deseret News Church Almanac, presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining three sources in the article are primary, and are not usable to establish notability. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing faint passing mentions (e.g. [15]), minor quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature) and name checks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- General authorities in LDS are like bishops in the Catholic Church. Wikiproject religion considers bishops in the Catholic Church and analogous churches to be notable per WP:BISHOPS. Note that LDS bishops are not automatically notable per this guideline, but LDS general authorities are not bishops, as stated. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – WP:BISHOPS is an opinion essay; it is not a guideline or policy at all. There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia whatsoever. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

• It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
• Its thesis is unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Lawrence E. Corbridge, not some other subject.
• Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
• There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– I sure hope this isn't closed based upon a simple !vote count. Thus far, not even one source has been presented herein for consideration to potentially qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Community consensus has not supported treating LDS leaders as exempt from GNG, despite repeated efforts to propose such an exemption (see examples in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). So WP:GNG applies to LDS leaders. This is not a problem for LDS leaders who actually get significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. But that's not the case for this article's subject. Sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Liahona, Almanac, lds.org) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill") and do not count toward establishing notability. Note that the Almanac is assembled by Church News staff, which is why it is not independent. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions, event announcements, and Church News items reproduced in Deseret News, along with a single name check in a 1996 local business article in his role as an attorney (under "Larry Corbridge"). The subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Open to reconsideration if in-depth coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 04:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, two refs in the article that don't offer notability, usually these LDS articles have a few more refs. Szzuk (talk) 19:32, 10 November 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kindred[edit]

Michal Kindred (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)

No references, plus, request from subject ticket:2018102910008896 S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A search only shows passing mentions in lists of bodybuilders. He has a page on Polish Wikipedia but that page has a grand total of zero references. Even if we grant that the page is notable and has sources, it would require extensive prose work to conform to guidelines. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 03:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article has no references. My own search found no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 17:24, 7 November 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. Needs more discussion of the sources proposed by Regenspaziergang. Sandstein 09:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JsRender/JsViews[edit]

JsRender/JsViews (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'm not finding coverage meeting WP:GNG for this, and the article gives no indication of significance or note. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication of significance through significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:IINFO.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say its popularity mostly results from its predecessor jQuery Templates, which did in fact receive broad coverage if alone for the fact that it was the "official" jQuery plugin for JS templates, and jQuery is ubiquitous. That, and the fact that a major player, Microsoft, bases several of their most well-known and widespread web apps on it. I'm a bit hard pressed to say how much coverage really define notability, but there are definitely several articles about it, and hundreds of blog posts mentioning it. Will research what the best resources are to cite. --Regenspaziergang ^!? 09:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of technical points:
    • Being an offshoot of something notable doesn't confer notability. For example, every offshoot anyone's built of Mozilla isn't notable. That's where coverage comes in.
    • Blog posts mentioning it, as in passing, won't help. I guess some blogs may be considered reputable, reliable sources, and maybe some of those have the required focus on this topic.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An offshoot is something entirely different though. This here is more like the official version 2 of the same thing, same author and all. It has superseded the original.

I guess the most relevant discussions of JsRender come from Dan Wahlin and John Papa, Microsoft's ASP and web app gurus. Apart from that, many library ecosystems, some even out of the scope of pure JS, make use of it. It can be used with Python's Django framework, with Ruby on Rails and of course npm and others; and it's featured in a very well-received book about jQuery, jQuery Hotshot, and another book on mobile apps with jQuery. --Regenspaziergang ^!? 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per my previous comment, WP:GNG is met (WP:IINFO also obviously so.) --Regenspaziergang ^!? 20:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Regenspaziergang (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 17 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. Other than the article creator and some obvious socks, clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Merunka[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)).

Stefan Merunka (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)

Contested PROD, non-notable tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only found passing mentions. Possibly promotional as well. Iffy★Chat -- 13:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect to Your opinion, I think this young player deserves a article here. He was one of the best Junior Players, National Team Memeber, He was an ATP Player with ATP Points, turned professional 2013there are enough references listed. Please give a chance to Stefan Merunka — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:D8E8:52CD:9B70:F21E (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:C22:762E:9C00:D8E8:52CD:9B70:F21E (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

• Stefan Merunka don’t fail at WP:Ntennis. He is a member of ATP and ITF. He has played second round of ATP 250 Malaysian Open. He deserves a place here. There is a lot of players on this side that don’t even have a half so many good results as Stefan Merunka. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spodeco (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC) — Spodeco (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he fails NSPORT amd Tennis Guidelines. He has never played an ATP Tour event per all sources. He has only played minor league, and minor-minor league events and has never won. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, passes WP:NTENNIS (3.2) as he has played in ATP World Tour tournaments (ATP World Tour 250). --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing vote.--Gpkp (u • t • c) 15:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpkp: He has never played an ATP event if you check the sources. It was an error to say so in the article and it has been removed. He hasn't even won a minor league tennis event. Zero. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpkp: He has played Qualifying of 3 ATP 250Tournaments. ATP 250 Metz, ATP 250 Kuala Lumpur, ATP Kitzbühel. Spodeco (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]