< 10 September	12 September >

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. There is firm consensus here that this page is not suitable for the mainspace. I could draftify it again, but given that the creator has edit-warred over moving it to mainspace, I am not going to refund this unless and until the creator undertakes to work on it in draftspace only. It can be moved to mainspace by someone else if and when it passes AfC. Vanamonde (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Onyebuchi Muoma[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Can't find any actual reliable sources to support the claims here and i'm not even sure that the awards are notable. Possibly WP:TOOSOON CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for any inconveniences, the first time I tried to write Wikipedia, I was hundred and bullied, I ran away since because I felt that was very mean to me. I came back just last month,though I have been reading comments,correcting small issues. However, this article was given to me by a new editor who just registered.That been said, the Nollywood industry is multifaceted there kaniwood,Yoruba Nollywood,Igbo Nollywood and even Ghana Nollywood. The young man in question has really created a niche for himself, in an industry that is dominated by older generation. He has not just been a producer, but has created platform for young people. It is important I explain these things.
However, I'm still asking for direction as regards to the article, if you know how to make it better to be published do let me know thank you. 13th September 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This article is going through the AfC process and clearly still has a ways to go. _signed,Rosguill^talk 03:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The principal author of this page moved it into article space when it was not ready for article space. I agree with Rosguill that draft space is a better place, and with Chrissymad that the case for notability has not been made. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- My response: I have been asking for help since last month on what next to do, it was moved straight to draft as soon as I uploaded it. So I started editing it by removing a lot of things that were included. Up till now I'm still willing to modify whatever you want to be modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - For an admin, if we Draftify, and this page is moved to article space again without review by a reviewer, does that mean that we have to AFD it all over again, or does that mean that the principal author can be blocked for disruptive moving, or what? We are here because there was already one non-consensus move to article space. Therefore:
Draftify as an alternative to deletion, with the understanding that either Delete or Block are available if there is move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose draftifying it. Draft space isn't an incubator for unsourced, spammy, non-notable autobiographies. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - My response: It will interest me that you point out all the errors there in. I'm not unteachable or rigid. If you will point out the corrections I will gladly follow it through that's what I have been asking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not want to argue over whether to delete or to draftify. My primary concern is to remove it from article space, for which it is not ready. I do not know whether it will ever be ready for article space. My guess is that it never will. The question is whether to give the author a chance, or to delete it now. I had not been seeing it as an autobiography. Is it an autobiography? Do we know that, or are we guessing? I will comment that the author moved it into article space without waiting for a reviewer. User:Rosguill - Do you think that it will be ready to be an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are some indications that the subject is a notable figure within Nollywood and thus could possibly be improved to comply with GNG, and I don't think there's any evidence of autobiography. Moreover, based on edit summaries, Fabregado appeared to be moving to article space in good faith, even if we deem their judgment of the article's quality to have been incorrect. Per WP:BITE it seems a bit harsh to nominate for deletion at this time. _signed,Rosguill^talk 20:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? BITE doesn't apply here. The creator has been given plenty of guidance and warnings prior to this AFD. Winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally hesitant to vote for deletion when a lack of notability could be a consequence of systemic bias. Additionally, looking at Fabregado's talk page, I see lots of warnings (for other articles) and not much guidance, plus a clear misunderstanding on their part of how to send messages in a way that their desired recipients will read them, which leads me to believe that moving the article from draft was likely due to not understanding (or having read) WP:GNG. If they were to do this again after this AfD, I would consider their benefit of the doubt to have expired, but we're not there yet IMO. However, the more I review this article the less I believe that there is any possibility of notability. _signed,Rosguill^talk 21:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have for at least a year had mostly negative thoughts about the BITE - the guideline not to bite the newcomers. This discussion is a new reason why I don't like it. My basic problem with WP:BITE is that it is a guideline, but has been elevated to the status of a commandment, superseding not only guidelines but policies. I have seen editors tie themselves in knots in dealing with problematic new editors in order to avoid being bitey. This discussion identifies another problem, which is that it is being applied to the wrong subject. The guideline, or commandment, was only ever meant to apply to editors. Here it is being applied to an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and quality of the encyclopedia should be foremost, because the purpose of behavioral policies and guidelines is to maintain a workplace in which the quality of the encyclopedia is upheld. If a page does not belong in article space, it should not be left in article space only because an editor is acting in good faith but is mistaken (as to notability or whatever). What should have been done instead of nominating the article for deletion? It could have been unilaterally draftified, but, since it had just been promoted by the author, that would have been move-warring. If it fails notability, it fails notability, and the good-faith of its author does not make it notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So let's discuss notability considerations, not whether to be nice to a new editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly do we need to know about the person in question?
Notability in Nigeria is very subjective, it is a polarized place where people place premium on different issues. What maybe notable to you from the north may not for me from the East. That aside,I think we need to understand that the person in question has done more than I have written. He may not be widely popular because he is not on the screen, but he has really done so much not just for himself but the society at large, at his age and background . He is an inspiration to many people around here.
But that's not the point. The point is,I need to know the exact problem so that I will correct it immediately.
Please don't be hard on me,I'm still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabregado (talk • contribs) 14:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest that you read through Wikipedia's general notability guideline, as well as Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guideline for biographies of creative professionals to get an idea of how notability is determined. The issue isn't so much that there is contentious information in the article that needs to be removed, rather the article's subject does not appear to pass the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. We need more citations to in-depth coverage at reliable secondary sources unaffiliated with the subject. Currently, the article cites an interview (generally not used to justify notability due to its reliance on content provided by the subject), a stub listing of the subject's career profile (not independent, not a secondary source), some YouTube links (not secondary sources, probably not independent, don't provide in-depth coverage of the subject), and an award announcement for an award that doesn't appear to pass the notability guideline itself (not in-depth coverage, possibly not independent). _signed,Rosguill^talk 17:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability guidelines. I am considering here that there are many reliable news sources in Nigeria, and none of them have reported on this subject. Any notable subject will have been reported on by local sources. This is not a notable subject. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film producers, as well as cinematographers and film editors, rarely get significant coverage, unless they have a substantial number of notable productions to their credit, and then often because one or several of their films have won national level awards. Here we have a WP:UPE (permalink) bio of a person with no notable films to his credit, and the prize received is from the local chapter of the Actors Guild of Nigeria; fails WP:ANYBIO as well as WP:BASIC/WP:GNG.
In regards to draftification: technically this article has only been in main space once, namely this time, and therefore technically it could have been moved to draft space unilaterally. However, since article creator's two first moves of the page showed clear intention of publishing the article, and since the third move must be regarded as a very active objection to draftification, it is well within the spirit of WP:DRAFTIFY when Crissy nominates this for AFD, cf. Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. WP:BITE is not relevant here. Sam Sailor 08:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 01:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia national under-17 football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and has no notability shown AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have thought that a national team is notable. There should be coverage on the team, and there is - [1][2][3][4][5], this is before you get to the local language of the country. It should qualify under WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT does not actually cover teams except for a few individual sports, see WP:NTEAM, but perhaps it should, as I think nominations such as this are unnecessary). Hzh (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources by Hzh. Nominator should have done a better search WP:BEFORE nominating, notability of the GNG is based on what exists, not based on the current sourcing in the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Hzh, although article needs some serious improving. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hzh, although the article needs a lot of work. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as a national team and per GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:06, 17 September 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. Canley (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah Transit Authority bus routes[edit]

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

This page simply copies information from the transit authority's website without providing much additional material, unlike many other bus route lists which have historical background or detailed route statistics. Unfortunately, there does also not seem to be a significant or even existing group of editors available to keep this information updated, which would be required every route change, so in its current form, this list is forever outdated. Because of its redundancy to the information on the website, this page is not necessary. BRES2773 (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm leaning towards WP:NOTDIRECTORY on this. Otherwise, this could probably be merged somewhere. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 10:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a directory of run of the mill bus routes, nothing else of importance or significance. All of which can be found on the UTA main website. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR MB 00:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The only sourced facts on this page are in the introduction, not the main body of content. The external links are both to the transit authority's website. Persons seeking this information would be much better off getting it from the transit authority's own website rather than a Wikipedia copy of it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Eide[edit]

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

This is an individual who tragically died at age 30. She was also the sister of a cross-country skier on Norway's national team, thus garnering attention. Ida Eide was also a skier herself, but as the article admits, not a comparatively accomplished one at that. Her highest level of competition was the nondescript Scandinavian Cup, with no top-15 placements in the national championships either. You will find lots of media attention post-mortem, but that unfortunately falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cross country skier. An early death and being the sister of a better known skier are insufficient to show notability. I'd say WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED both apply. At the same time she fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Papaursa (talk) 18:29, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zillakami[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:BAND. Sources provided in article include Youtube videos of interviews and the subject's Soundcloud page. Google searches turn up some coverage on blogs, but no apparent reliable sources. Closest thing to a reliable source providing in depth coverage that I found was ^[1], but even that doesn't appear to be an WP:RS _signed,Rosguill^talk 21:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "New York Rapper Zillakami is Taking Hip-Hop to Brutal New Extremes".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:47, 19 September 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 16:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hominids of the Ringworld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unable to find a single reliable, third party source for this subject independent of the Ringworld books. There are no sources and no real asseertion of notability, and most of the text is WP:PLOT details. There's also no obvious page to merge, but that's a possibility if one's identified. But as it is, there's no way this article could be expanded or cleaned up. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:06, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Might count as original research – correct me if I'm wrong. The material is not enough to stand alone as its own article without sources. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 18:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single source. Normally, I'd suggest redirect to Known Space per WP:ATD, but I don't see any of these even mentioned there, and it's an unlikely search term, so don't redirect. Not to mention fails WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 19 September 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 Paul Kalas#Books. Consensus is that the book should be covered at the author's page. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Oneironauts[edit]

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

A self-published book on a fringe topic with no independent references, created by an author with a likely COI. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO by apparent undeclared WP:COI editor. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the COI declaration and the subsequent discussion below, changing !vote to Redirect to Paul Kalas, with the understanding that the author follows WP:COI guidelines and works with other editors to add material to personal page. Bakazaka (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author is a public/historic figure in science with an ongoing publication record. The book is a new addition to this publication record and involves the history of science pertaining to discoveries made with the Hubble Space Telescope. The book is being reviewed and independent references/response will be added. Financial COI's have been minimized.Pkalas (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkalas: Your first-hand knowledge of the financial COI suggests a direct connection. Are you the book's author? Bakazaka (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author. I added the book to my publication list for Paul Kalas, which also has links to my other publications. I have a colleague with a similar wikipedia entry for his book (Physics_for_Future_Presidents) and used it as an example. Pkalas (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you need to follow Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest policy on disclosure and editing. That doesn't mean you can't edit, just that you must disclose your connections, for example on the talk pages of articles about you or your work that you edit, and that you should follow a few extra steps when creating or editing articles about yourself. I have gone ahead and placed a connected contributor notice on the talk page for this article. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Thank you for the explanation. Next time I edit I will write that I am a connected contributor. Pkalas (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is more information needed? I satisfy WP:PROFTEST and notability. The book concerns the history of how I acquired the Hubble Space Telescope image of the planetary system around Fomalhaut -- this image appeared on the front cover of the New York Times (2008) and is displayed at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. Therefore my work is notable (not fringe) because it is highly visible publicly (as opposed to a narrow, specialized academic topic) and impactful in the history of discovering planets outside the solar system. An independent and unsolicited reviewer posted on 18-minute book review on YouTube. Someone could add this review to the "Reception" portion of the page. A copy of the book has also been requested (and provided) to a reviewer in a journal that publishes book reviews which would also go to the "Reception" portion of the page (once the review is published). The book description is objective and the tone is neutral. Pkalas (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion discussions usually take a week or more, giving other editors time to chime in. Repeated voting by the same user will be taken into account by the editor who closes the discussion. Since the article is about a book and not a person, Wikipedia:Notability (books) is a relevant guideline. Note the threshold standards as well as the notability guidelines. For example, if the book has not been catalogued by a national library, it might be excluded simply on those grounds. Other policies and guidelines may apply as well. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more is needed (but almost certainly doesn't exist). The thesis of the book seems to be that your dreams predict the future, which is clearly a WP:FRINGE topic. A single (unlinked) Youtube review is certainly not enough to meet WP:NBOOK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pkalas, you can comment several times on an AfD discussion, however you can only post "keep" once. Also, I do need to note that notability is not inherited, which essentially means that in order for the book to have its own page it will have to have enough sourcing to establish how it meets WP:NBOOK and is independently notable of yourself. As far as reviews go, Wikipedia is pretty picky. Reviews published in self-published sources (SPS) like YouTube will almost always be seen as non-reliable sources on Wikipedia unless the SPS (in this case the YouTube channel hosting the review) is cited frequently enough in independent, reliable sources to be seen as a reliable source itself. It's incredibly rare for a SPS to gain this type of recognition, to be honest, which is why I never really bother using them in articles I'm trying to create or improve. The journal could be seen as reliable depending on its editorial oversight and status. Peer-reviewed journals are almost always seen as reliable sources on here. However that would only be one source at this point in time and you'd need more than this to really establish notability. Sometimes, if the sources make a claim of overwhelming notability such as the book winning a major award, 1-2 sources are enough but in the vast majority of cases book articles will need at least 3-4 to really pass NBOOK. The catch of the 1-2 sources part of NBOOK is that if there is that major of a claim to notability for the book, there will almost certainly be far more coverage out there (even if not on the Internet) to establish notability, making the 1-2 source point moot.

Since one was used in the article, e-commerce sites like Amazon are not seen as reliable sources because their primary goal is to sell you something. Its use can also make the page seem promotional -even if this is unintended by yourself - and can come across as Wikipedia endorsing the site or product. If you're just looking to back up publisher data, I'd recommend WorldCat. In any case, at this point I'd suggest that this be merged and summarized on your article given the lack of sourcing. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the book is primarily about your experiences and discovery, then covering this in your article would make sense since then it could be used to expand the article to contain more information about yourself. Since there's a conflict of interest here, I'd recommend that you work with another editor on this since it goes beyond the addition of non-controversial info (ie, stuff that would be seen as relatively minor to adding whole paragraphs of content.) ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MoveThis book should really be listed on the author page and not have its own separate entry. As it stands it does not have enough information to live up to WP:NB. You can move most of the information on to the author page under Published Works. Auldhouse (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information. I was using my colleague’s book Physics_for_Future_Presidents as a template. It seemed to me that this apppeared on Wikipedia in 2014 because it represented a portion of his scholarly work, not because it was notable. Note that it was published in 2008 — the book and the book reviews were six years out of date by 2014. In the last 10 years there are no other references to the book, which is not consistent with notability. Nevertheless, it represents his writing and thinking. In my case, it seems I created a book page too early instead of too late. Nevertheless, the book represents my writing and thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkalas (talk • contribs) 16:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No reviews? Redirect to the author and cover summary style. Needs significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources to warrant a standalone article. (?) czar 19:34, 16 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ReiBoot[edit]

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

Promotional article about non-notable software. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Possible covert advertising, creator TechGeekRon is ACPERM gaming. MER-C 19:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a noted software, and the article is more to marketing / promotional -Jay (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are publicity provided by the company, routine reviews, or blogs. No significant, independent, reliable coverage. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Thomas (pastor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, cannot find in-depth coverage in unaffiliated reliable sources. Was listed as PROD with an endorsement, but the page creator removed that, claiming that provided sources mention the subject. However, these sources are not independent, and most do not mention the subject in depth Rosguill^talk 18:50, 11 September 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 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As noted above, the references are all either affiliated sources or only mention the subject in passing. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG< not enough reliable indepth articles on him. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability of the article is so doubtful. Clearly fails the WP:GNG --Jay (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of local sources, but he's hardly "international" or notable. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Euler's Day Off[edit]

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

This is a non-notable game that was probably invented by the article creator. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been a speedy A11 long ago. Most search hits are post-2006 and are derived from this article. Search finds this from 2005 [6], submitted by a user with a partial name match to the username of this article's creator. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an archive-url link to the now-defunct website for this game, copyrighted by Setterhouse, with the FAQ explaining its origins: [7] Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides not being notable, this article seems to have been constructed in such a way that it is more like a rule book or guide book to the game rather than an encyclopedic entry about it. Grapefruit17 (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. And for some reason, I have an urge to re-watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Oh yeaaahhh.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is completely unsourced, and is not about a famous word game. Vorbee (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced article with no claim to notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chetsford (talk) 14:11, 17 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Gallery[edit]

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

I can't see how this business meets our notability guidelines for companies, nor where we might find enough solid and non-trivial in-depth coverage of it to allow us to write anything much more than the present pathetic stub (for which I take some responsibility). The page was created as an advertisement by an obvious paid editor in violation of our Terms of Use, and Wikipedia does not tolerate advertising of any kind. There is also, incidentally, a troubled history of interference from other connected parties, the most recent of which has attempted to blank the page; I don't think we need to let that deter us from deleting it if there is consensus to do so. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the main claim to notability seems to be the picture of Trump, already well covered at the artist's page. Additionally, I tend to feel any page that is only edited by COI accounts and good-faith editors doing damage control on those COI accounts should be deleted. This isn't policy, but spam made me a deletionist. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentatively~~ Obviously keep. Justlettersandnumbers—you are once again gutting an article and then nominating it for deletion. You seem to have decided that sources documenting art exhibitions at art galleries do not have the potential to contribute to the notability of art galleries. But this reasoning is flawed. Reliable sources relating to an art exhibition at an art gallery certainly can contribute to the notability of an art gallery. We do not have notability guidelines specifically tailored to contemporary art galleries. You are repeatedly referring to WP:NCORP in these instances. In doing so you are completely disregarding the nature of contemporary art galleries. You've dropped the language of "a car dealer does not become notable because he sells well-known brands of car, a butcher's shop does not become notable because it sells a famous kind of meat, a second-hand charity shop does not become notable because it sells clothes made by famous companies, a plumber does not become notable because he works on a famous building"[8] (variations of which you have used in many previous instances) but in essence you are still disregarding the difference between other sorts of businesses and contemporary art galleries. One of the most important differences is that the sources that would support the notability of art galleries are found in the reviews by reliable sources of the exhibitions held at the art gallery. You are removing those sources and then nominating the gallery for deletion. And this does not necessarily involve the policy of WP:INHERIT. The reviews have the potential to confer notability directly on the art gallery. You are incorrectly understanding these reviews as only conferring notability on artists and on artworks. The gallery plays a major role in mounting these exhibitions, not to mention in choosing which artists to select and which artworks to show. I am not arguing pointedly that this article should not be deleted. But you've got to take a rational approach to evaluating the suitability of art galleries. The comparisons to other businesses that you are are repeatedly making are inappropriate. In your edit summary here you are comparing an art gallery to a bookstore. Bookstores are virtually dictated to by forces well beyond their control. But gallerists often make highly independent decisions about what "product" to proffer to the customer. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to see how any art gallery could fail to be notable under this rationale. They all have exhibitions, and doubtless they can all get Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not this again. Bus stop should really give up on this line of reasoning. they have never found consensus for it, and in fact never bothered to show how it could work in practice when I proposed to them, as an example, an article entirely based on exhibition reviews of very notable artists with minimal mention of the gallery in Draft:Galerie Greta Meert. This cannot work, and it has no chance of finding consensus. It is high time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations—is the WP:STUB form of article acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbeast—I'm sorry but I am unfamiliar with "Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94". Could you please familiarize me with "Phil Space to mention their exhibitions on page 94"? I've restored what had been the Previous exhibitions section of the article as WP:NCORP supports the inclusion of material that involves the "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". And I do not find any of that "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product" taking place on "page 94" or authored by "Phil Space". Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been looking for sources, and came across this gem from our friend at the Daily Mail, who describe the owner Jay Rutland (yes, that is a fact we didn't have a citation for) as making "a very dapper appearance in a slick black suit and slightly unbuttoned white shirt". According to the Sun, another of our favorite sources, he's married to Tamara Ecclestone, and he's the brother of Joanne Wheatley. So yeah, there's actually significant, in-depth covergae of the gallerists in profiles like https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-5811925/Tamara-Ecclestone-husband-Jay-really-goes-superking.html where we can see him brushing his teeth in, errr she's wearing Massimo Alba, not sure what he's wearing. But seriously, this has only received significant coverage in the tabloids. Just no. Vexations (talk) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in-depth coverage about gallery itself in reliable sources.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom—what would constitute "in-depth coverage about gallery itself"? Would that be type of lighting? How many square feet the gallery has? What would it be? Bus stop (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCORP: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Vexations (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In many instances there are reviews of art gallery exhibitions published by reliable sources. Would reviews of art exhibitions held by the art gallery constitute "evaluation of the product" per WP:NCORP? Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have such a source, show it so we can evaluate it. If you don't have such a source then you're being disruptive. Vexations (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of exhibitions have been removed in this edit prior to the nomination of this article for deletion. While I have not scrutinized each of the removed references, I see at a glance that some contain citations. The reasoning expressed in the edit summary also shows a non-recognition of an aspect of the policy of WP:NCORP, which says that "evaluation of the product" is a factor to be considered. How can we blithely remove references to "evaluation of the product" and then nominate an article for deletion? The edit summary says "exhibitions are the routine business of galleries, no need to list them here; would we list every book-signing at Hatchards? (or indeed, every book?". So what? The sources that are being removed are potentially evaluating the product, are they not? I picked a source at random, and this is the only source I've looked at. A photographer named David Yarrow is mentioned. I read in the removed source:

"Also on show with Maddox Gallery in Miami will be the engrossing photography of David Yarrow, the world’s leading wildlife photographer. David Yarrow has built a world-class reputation for producing photographs of the planet’s most remote landscapes, cultures and endangered animals. His methods for enticing dangerous animals near enough to his lens for the best photograph include researching which animal is most attracted to which scent and then coating his camera in it as he lays in wait."

Considerably more is said in that source about Maddox Gallery and the artist and the artwork. I would contend that this constitutes "evaluation of the product". The bottom line, at the very least, is that you can't just remove a list of reviews of exhibitions that have been held at the gallery over the years, and then nominate an article for deletion. That is unfair to the article. Apparently I'm just wasting my breath because I've raised this issue several times in the past.

I would contend that WP:NCORP supports the inclusion of material that evaluates the product, and the inclusion of such material tends to contribute to the notability of an art gallery. I will concede that the burying of material in citations is a less-than-adequate means of informing the reader about the gallery. To me, that points to the need to include excerpts from these citations—we need to discuss in the article the reliably-sourced descriptions and evaluations of the artwork the gallery has shown. In general I favor a common sense approach to our treatment of art galleries, especially those covering contemporary art. We are unfairly deleting articles on what in many instances are vital cultural institutions. Before new art reaches museums it passes through art galleries. These scrappy enterprises warrant special consideration and yet our notability guidelines do not specifically address them. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as "products" of a gallery is tenuous. Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale?

I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give "special consideration" to promote "scrappy enterprises" which its editors deem "vital". You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them.

Which is a not-a-vote of delete, for the record. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Characterizing the work of artists who exhibit there as 'products' of a gallery is tenuous." Please explain to me why works of art are not the "products" sold at art galleries.

"Do bookstores, theatres, and cinemas inherit notability from media coverage of the things they present for viewing/sale? We read in WP:NCORP at WP:CORPDEPTH that "significant coverage" can be demonstrated by "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". Art galleries sell art as their product. Reliably sourced reviews of art displayed for sale in an art gallery constitute "significant coverage" because they include "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product".

"I don't support the notion that Wikipedia should give 'special consideration' to promote 'scrappy enterprises' which its editors deem 'vital'. You know, I happen to regard small independent booksellers and comics shops, family-run taquerías and pizza parlors, and cheap neighborhood pubs and queer bars as scrappy enterprises of great value to society, and the lifeblood of communities and their economies. But I don't think that makes it Wikipedia's responsibility to promote them." I agree 100%. I was merely explaining what art galleries are. They discover artists. This can't be said for museums. Museums are generally not scrappy enterprises. Bus stop (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully: I said they are not the products of art galleries -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said that as "scrappy enterprises" they should get "special consideration". That view is antithetical to NPOV. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I said that as scrappy enterprises art galleries should receive special consideration in Wikipedia then I stand corrected. I might have misspoken, as that is not the position I hold.

As to the question of whether or not artworks sold in galleries are "products" of art galleries—it is my position that in a sense they are. My reasoning here you may not entirely agree with, but the gallerist chooses what art to show. Ninety-nine artists approached the gallerist with works ranging from the representational to abstract to the conceptual to the surrealistic and of those ninety-nine artists the gallerist chose to represent only one of those artists. You may disagree but to me it is obvious that the gallerist chose which "product" to put on display and to place for sale within their gallery and therefore in a sense that artwork is the "product" of the art gallery, obviously shared with the artist. It is not unthinkable that a level of collaboration is attained between an attentive gallerist and an artist. In a sense I reject the absolutist understanding of an artist as an auteur who plots his own path without consideration of the feedback he might receive from others. In short, gallerists sometimes nurture artists and provide guidance. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"If"? You said it. It's right up there, and rather clearly expressed. Geez. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JasonAQuest—what more can I say? I am not pleading for special treatment for art galleries in regard to our policy of WP:NPOV. I misspoke. Should I grovel? I've already said "that is not the position I hold." You have said that this is "antithetical to NPOV" and I agree.

Allow me to take this occasion to ask you to please not post your posts in the midst of my posts. There have been two instances of this in the past 24 hours and in each instance I've moved your post to what I hope is an acceptable placement on the page. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you not to use weaselly post-factual rhetoric like "if I said that" when it's obvious that you did. I'd like you to say "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." (I've responded to your points in places I thought would make the referent clearer. But I'll try harder to respond in places that don't place as much of a burden on you trying to remember what your principles are.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, "Yes, I wrote that, but I didn't mean it." Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You guessed right: I disagree with this pretentious, gallerist-fondling twaddle. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this is the only source I've looked at Really? Perhaps you should actually read the sources before you find a subject notable. Here's the list of all references that were ever in the article.

I think you'll find upon evaluating them that there were good reasons many of them were removed. --Vexations (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations—there is a big difference between an article that needs to be improved and an article that should be deleted. I would contend that we've seen articles on entirely notable galleries of contemporary art, deleted in these processes. Who is going to recreate those article? Notability is satisfied because in keeping with WP:NCORP we have extensive "discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product". If you disagree with that, then that is what we should be discussing. Yes, I picked a random source. It was this source. Do you disagree that that source contains discussion, analysis, and evaluation of the product? Let's look at another source. How about this one. The Guardian is a source of impeccable quality. The subtitle is "Illma Gore’s painting, on display at Maddox Gallery in London now with a £1m pricetag, depicts the Republican presidential candidate with a small penis". That is a discussion of the product on display (and for sale) at the Maddox Gallery. Also contained in that citation: "Cordelia de Freitas, Maddox gallery director, said: 'It only really got out of hand when Donald Trump referenced it in a debate, which sums up Trump and his ego. From there, everyone wanted to see this image.'" There are several more Guardian citations in the list that you posted above. Thanks for compiling them all in one place. In my opinion the first order of business is rescuing this article from deletion. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bus stop I regret that based on your not actually reading the sources prior to forming an opinion on the notability of the subject, I cannot take your contributions to this AfD seriously. You're just trying to make the same flawed argument that you've been making elsewhere that exhibition reviews can establish the notability of art galleries. It doesn't. You're misreading "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." to give you license to include https://www.artrabbit.com/events/autumn-contemporary as a source for Autumn Contemporary - Group exhibition. That is absurd. It's a press release. Vexations (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, just to point out that you're incorrectly interpreting the use and context of the word "product" as it is used in WP:NCORP. The use of the word "product" applies when the topic of an article in question refers to a product and not an organization/company. Read the first sentence of WP:NCORP. Since the topic in this instance is the art gallery, then we need references that discuss the gallery. References that discuss the product fail the criteria for establishing notability (as per WP:NOTINHERIT). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and expand, per arguments and reasoning made by User:Bus stop. Sources are generally reliable, and gallery is notable per WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Coldcreation (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the references meets the criteria for establishing notability. We either have articles discussing the exhibits (which fail as per WP:NOTINHERIT, articles that are mentions in passing (which fail as per WP:CORPDEPTH) or articles where the sources are connected with the gallery (which fail as not being "intellectually independent" and fail WP:ORGIND). I'm happy to revisit my !vote if/when at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability can be found, but I'm unable to find even one. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 19 September 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. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Falcons[edit]

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

There are many issues here.

The first is that the main subject of the article in its current state, is that of a very minor local semi-pro football team. Its WP:GNG-worthy coverage appears non-existent and only gets a few brief mentions in local papers, and even then, the subject of those mentions are in WP:ROUTINE game summaries for the Racine Raiders. This article definitely reads very WP:FANCRUFTy.

Second, it appears this article was originally created for a team in the National Soccer League (Chicago) before it was taken over by various IPs earlier this year to create the page for the semipro team. This is obviously an inappropriate action and possibly should be split out and this page reverted to its original intent.

However, the original article was created using only two references, both being stats pages, which is typically insubstantial to meet WP:GNG. Not sure if the NSL has any "automatic" presumed notability for WP:FOOTYN. Due to its age, there is a possibility of printed media coverage that I am not finding, which if that is the case, then it should at least have its own page as it is completely unrelated to the semipro American football team. Yosemiter (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator, the Footy project believes the soccer club is notable for the US Open Cup and there are at least some printed refs and books about that at least mention or discuss the Falcons. I would like to see better references used than the stats pages currently on the page. However, I have reverted the article to the point prior to the article overwrite of the semipro American football team because it seems fairly clear that all involved feel that subject does not meet WP:GNG. In a related subject, the same editors that overwrote this article created Asif Ali (American football), which I have nominated for deletion here for having both insubstantial independent sources for GNG and clearly false claims. Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yosemiter (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ this is a prime example of an article that is so bad it should be deleted... not that it wouldn't be served well with two separate articles (maybe yes, maybe no) but until that is determined and cleaned up, I don't think we can accurately assess what we are looking at.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the nominator has withdrawn and there seems to be editors enthusiastic about cleaning this one up, I happily change my position to Keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, kind of. There are two articles here where there should only be one, and Yosemiter has done a good job of describing the issue. The gridiron team is clearly non-notable, despite the sources all of them are primary, and some of their links (Asif Ali) probably could be AfD'd as well. The football team appears absolutely notable for winning the U.S. Open Cup in 1953. I don't have a subscription to the site and can't verify the quality of the article, but I can say they were definitely mentioned in media at the time: [9] I would recommend restoring the article to the revision on November 2017, which is just about the football team. SportingFlyer talk 23:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please note that the original article I created was about a defunct, notable soccer team (which won the US soccer national cup!) - it has since been hijacked by an IP about a gridiron team. No comment on their notability. If both are notable, the article needs to be split. If the American Football team is not notable then strip it back down to the soccer team. Giant Snowman 11:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I was unfamiliar with FOOTYN standards (which is why I made sure to alert the original creator), I am willing to withdraw this nomination based on reverting back to the article about the football team. I have since found they are mentioned in some books, but I am not sure on the significant coverage there to meet GNG. I am not positive I agree that winning the US Open Cup in 1953 would have been well covered then as mostly amateur or semipro teams competed for it at that time (such as the NSL Falcons themselves). That might be a discussion for another day though. But right now, we seem to agree that the nomination for the American football team is a theoretical delete/revert additions. Yosemiter (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple period sources and want to flesh out the soccer article but am loathe to do it with the way the article stands at the moment. You're right in the sense the cup final didn't have a great level of coverage but it was discussed in newspapers in the areas where soccer was popular at the time (St. Louis, Chicago, Brooklyn) and Sports Illustrated did run the scores of the semifinals and finals. SportingFlyer talk 04:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I ahve the article back to the likely notable subject. Please add your sources and remove the ref improve tag once added. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring the article. I've struggled a bit because I don't have full access to the newspapers and the OCRs are typically terrible, but have improved the article/sources. I'm particularly frustrated since I haven't been able to find anything using internet searches in 1950s Chicago-area newspapers - the Chicago Public Library has online newspaper access, but I'm not local to Chicago and can't review it, but I have a feeling there's more information out there. SportingFlyer talk 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep content for the original notable subject. Strip out the crufty addon stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement[edit]

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

This content was split off from the Weinstein effect article after concerns (permalink here) that the lists there consisted of WP:OR and, if not restricting the lists only to cases cited by reliable sources as being the result of the Weinstein effect, could go on forever if including anyone who has been accused of sexual assault since the Weinstein effect and Me Too movement have taken a hold of society. Even if restricting the lists in such a way, it was noted that the Weinstein effect article is not a list article and that the lists could continue to expand (albeit at a slower rate). A solution was to cut the lists, not to create a WP:Content fork of the material. This content fork has the potential to be worse than it was in its original format since the title for it is broad and can easily allow for the inclusion of anyone who has been accused of sexual assault since the rise of the Me Too movement. It will be nothing but an indiscriminate list of accused people, with many entries not even tied to the Weinstein effect and/or Me Too movement. In fact, a number of the entries on this list are like that now. It is an unmanageable WP:BLP issue magnet. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. BLP issues, indiscriminate content, brr. I agree with the nominator. Drmies (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Way too broad of a list. Accusations of sexual misconduct a century from now would still be included in this list. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a list that will grow without end. The topic is notable, but is adequately covered by the effect and me too articles, which only need a handful of representative examples. For the ones where the accusation has had a major effect on the persons life (and therefore is discussed in some depth on their blp article, perhaps a cat would serve better. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fenix. It's fast becoming a WP:COATRACK to add anyone who has been accused of such things, regardless of the link back to the initial movement. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reminds me of the "Aftermath"/"Me Too effect" section of the old Me Too movement article, which was eventually removed because it was a "BLP nightmare". So too should this article be removed. ^Falling_Gravity 07:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate, unmaintainable, and a list of accusations is likely to have BLP violations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "accused of", serious BLP issues, should never have been forked. Sam Sailor 01:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a WP:BLP nightmare. We want to be very very very cautious when dealing in explosive material like this which is potentially very destructive to a person's reputation. If the article was List of notable people and groups associated with the New York Mets or whatever, that'd be one thing, and even then it'd be marginal to our mission and possibly hurtful (a person might, understandably, not want to known as being associated with the Mets). But this? Well outside of our remit. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BLP. This is not suitable content for a serious encyclopedia. - Mr X 🖋 13:55, 17 September 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 6. Redirect per WP:ATD. Note to those arguing to keep; your arguments would have been stronger had you included specific sources which met the WP:GNG standard. Just asserting that it's met doesn't leave the closer much to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Houlahan[edit]

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES, this article should be redirected to the main election article. Our usual consensus is that candidates (as opposed to elected officials) for office need to have significant coverage that is not about campaigns in order to pass our notability standards. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If she wins her election she'll meet notability standards, but as a candidate, she does not. Marquardtika (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidates do not meet inherently meet WP:NPOL. Marquardtika says it best, if she wins, we can reconsider.Bkissin (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another U.S. election season campaign brochure. Unelected candidates without prior notability fail WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROMO, WP:NPOL. Happy with a redirect if one is on offer. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, there is enough sources of substance to write a decent article, and she meets notability guidelines regardless of the outcome of the race. A merge with the election might work, but we cannot have undue weight. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unelected candidate. Candidate with an impressive bio, but no pre-election claim to notability and no WP:SIGCOV of her career dating to before she decided to run for office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the seat. Candidates are not automatically presumed notable just for being candidates — and since every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, the existence of some campaign coverage does not automatically hand a candidate an instant WP:GNG pass that would exempt them from still having to pass NPOL. The amount of sourcing shown here is nowhere near enough to already make her candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies, because every candidate could always show this many sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another unelected American politicians. Fails WP:NPOL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG and ANYBIO — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2018#District 6. Not notable prior to announcing her candidacy in 2017. Coverage following announcement seems par the course for a congressional hopeful. If she gets elected - can be undone.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agava[edit]

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

Article has been tagged as being in need of additional citations for ten years (since 12/2007) and as not meeting COMPANY for three years. The article as it currently exists reads like an advertisement and is purely promotional outside of the brief informational lead. Strikerforce^Talk 16:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the WP:GNG. The article is as per WP:PROMO --Jay (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I googled them and found a web hosting company in Russia, no evidence of notability on google or news. Szzuk (talk) 12:45, 18 September 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 Jože Brilej. Tone 09:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Brilej[edit]

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

Haven't been able to find any sources that mention her in more than just passing, which doesn't show notability for an article. Natureium (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jože Brilej. Her accomplishments listed in the article (war activities, PR for the tourism board, awards, various firsts) aren't sufficient on their own for notability -- I doubt that good enough reliable sources exist. Wikiacc (¶) 23:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG (and WP:V for that matter). Brad v 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than close this as the obvious delete right now, I'm going to relist it for another week, in the hopes of engendering some discussion about whether to redirect or not. Failing WP:N but having a logical redirect target argues for redirecting per WP:ATD, but an assertion that this fails WP:V argues for a straight delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a redirect as an alternative to deletion, if that helps. Marta is mentioned in the Jože Brilej article, so a redirect makes sense. Brad v 17:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dianne Jacob[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a person notable only as a county councillor. As always, people at the county level of government are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist -- to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a county supervisor needs to show a volume and depth and range of reliable source coverage that suggests she's got a credible claim to being substantially more notable than most other county councillors. But this doesn't suggest that at all: it cites just six local media hits. of which three just include her giving soundbite in an article about something else rather than being about her for the purposes of helping to get her over WP:GNG, and three are from a community hyperlocal webmedia startup rather than a notability-supporting major media outlet. Every county councillor in North America could always show a handful of local coverage in the local media, so this is not enough coverage to make her a special notability case among an otherwise not inherently notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this minor local politician is especially notable per WP:NPOL. No sources to demonstrate significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county council members are not automatically notable; and there appears to be no alternative claim to notability here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:51, 16 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burrs Mill Lake[edit]

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

A rather non-notable lake with no independent reliable sources, at least that I could find. Actually I could not locate that this lake even exists, at least on Google Maps. I tried looking along Burrs Mills Road and Route 70 in both Southampton and Pemberton. There is a Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir which is a pretty good size but even that does not have many reliable sources to include. Tinton5 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Try also:

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

--Doncram (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Google hits for this only point to Wikipedia. Hoax, or bad name. Unreferenced. Two sentences sub-stub. Zero value. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir is listed as GNIS ID 884193 (see here), but GNIS lists no Burrs Mill Lake. I'm not sure that the reservoir merits its own article, but it's clear that the lake does not. Alansohn (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wp:BOLDly moved the article to Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir. It is usually not good to make moves of an article under AFD discussion, but this seemed silly to me... there is sentiment towards acknowledging that the properly named reservoir exists and is notable, while if it is mis-named the topic is asserted to be non-notable. Whatever. Please discuss the notability of Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir. It seems to be a geographical feature, therefore it is notable. --Doncram (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Rename to Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir (as Doncram boldly did) and then Keep the renamed article. It is not called Burrs Mill Lake, no such lake exists. However the Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir actually does exist. But the Burrs Mill Brook article claims that they are separate lakes. This appears to be factually incorrect, Burrs Mill Lake does not exist and the Burrs Mill Brook article is mistaken. It appears to be an honest mistake, from someone who does not know the correct name is Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir. I support Doncram’s move to change it to the correct name. According to WP:NGEO, named lakes and reservoirs are notable if sources can be found to document them, which is true in the case of Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir, Alansohn found Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir listed in GNIS for instance and Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir is also on Google Maps. Here is an actual BOOK that mentions Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir: The National Gazetteer of the United States of America: New Jersey 1983, by the U.S. Geological Survey and United States Board on Geographic Names, page N-126. Piotr and Alansohn’s deletes vote do not (at this time) reflect the WP:BOLD move that Doncram below has made, which fixed the naming issue but complicated this AfD discussion a bit. Both of those votes are on Burrs Mill Lake, the old name, rather than Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir, which Doncram moved it to. Yetisyny (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yetisyny, the rename is a step forward, but the article that remains for the reservoir has no sources and no indication for why it should have an article. I'd be glad to reconsider my vote once appropriate reliable and verifiable sourcing has been added to demonstrate a measure of notability above and beyond its existence on a database. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even properly named as Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir, I see no indication it is notable. I disagree with the above synopsis of WP:NGEO. NGEO says features CAN be notable IF "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article..." "beyond statistics and coordinates." I haven't found anything beyond routine directory type listings. The best is this one which only adds that it is 3.5 miles from somewhere else and doesn't even know what species of fish can be caught there. Just not enough to support an article. MB 00:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MB and Alansohn. It seems I did not understand WP:NGEO correctly, apparently more verifiable content besides just basic statistics and coordinates is needed as MB explained above. Due to my mistake I crossed out the obviously mistaken portions of my earlier Keep vote, please disregard the portions I crossed out. Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir does indeed exist while Burrs Mill Lake does not, and Doncram did the right thing by renaming it to the right name, but existing is not enough to make it notable. At least it got renamed to the correct name so we could debate whether or not Burrs Mill Brook Reservoir is notable or not. It seems it is not in fact notable. I looked into WP:NGEO again, reading the text carefully, as well as taking what MB said about its meaning into account, and it became immediately apparent to me that MB was right and I had been wrong. Thus I have crossed out my earlier vote and am in total agreement with MB. I thank MB for educating me on this matter with such a good explanation of what that policy means and how it applies in this case. Yetisyny (talk) 04:12, 14 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Cox (politician)[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county supervisor. As always, people at the county level of government are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist -- to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a county supervisor needs to show a volume and depth and range of reliable source coverage that suggests he's got a credible claim to being substantially more notable than most other county councillors. Showing just enough sourcing to nominally verify that he exists is not enough -- but with just one local news hit and his own primary source profile on the county board's own self-published website, this is not sourced well enough. And even on the level of content, considerably more than half of this article is taken up by a list of the city neighborhoods that happen to be contained in his district, while the content about him literally doesn't go even one inch beyond "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another minor local politician without any significant claim to actually being notable. No sources demonstrate significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons explained by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement that politicians have to be "more notable than most other" politicians at the same level, only that they have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. That said, Cox is very much more notable than most County Supervisors, as a WP:BEFORE check would have discovered. He is the incumbent president of the National Association of Counties; a former "immensely popular" Mayor of Chula Vista (a city of a quarter-million people); a six-term incumbent; and apparently a major force in the politics of the fifth-most populous county in the USA. Overall, he is very much a major local political figure...who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists (per WP:NPOL), and this has been the case for decades. Rather than listing sources here, I invite editors to look at my expansion of the article. FourViolas (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting due to FourViolas, but I'm still leaning delete. Mayor of a chunk of the sprawling San Diego megalopolis, and the mayor who followed him was his wife Cheryl Cox. The problem is sourcing: The only non-local source I'm seeing is the Los Angeles Times, which only covered Cox in relationship to a financial scandal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based deletion rationale either: NPOL and GNG say nothing about sources' scope, only their reliability (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists), and WP:AUD only applies to organizations. The local newspapers mainly used are clearly RS for local politics: the San Diego Union Tribune is over 150 years old and has four Pulitzers and a circulation of several hundred thousand, and the Times of San Diego is a younger source but one that has also won a number of journalism awards.

That said, the LA Times has written about Cox many times about aspects other than the COI allegation: they've covered Cox giving speeches; being endorsed; fighting environmental regulations to get the Chula Vista Bayfront project approved [10] [11] [12] and to build a Navy housing project; asking for surplus Port money; and more recent activity [13] [14]. He's also been mentioned in national [15] [16] and local non-California media [17] [18]. FourViolas (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he is a politician and although Wikipedia has rather strict rules with regard to which politicians warrant coverage, it looks to me like the coverage of Cox is above the merely WP:ROUTINE (though I am noticing that WP:ROUTINE is an WP:EVENTS guideline, not a WP:BLP one). The election coverage gives us a basis for including the various personal details, but any coverage above this, like his becoming president of the National Association of Counties, seems to push him over the hump into notability. A loose noose (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Maybe not an autokeep for being an elected official, but sufficient coverage to fulfill GNG. Presidency of National Association of Counties adds to the case for keeping rather than deleting. Carrite (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very long term local politician with national coverage as president of the National Association of Counties. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've reviewed all the sources set out above and all of the sources in the article and none of them are about him, but rather routine coverage of his actions in his role local politician. The best profiles on him are all announcements of local campaign coverage. As such he fails to meet WP:NPOL's (A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, "none of them are about him"?? I must be missing something. I had the sense that at least most of them were "about" him, but that only some of these would count towards a notability argument. I am not sure you can argue that the article(s) discussing his becoming president of the NAC is about the NAC or its presidency with Cox merely a byproduct of that coverage. A loose noose (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FourViolas. There is some cleanup of the article needed, but easily meets WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus emerged in this discussion. References were improved yet arguments still went both ways. This time closed with prejudice against fast renomination. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Development Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NPASR applies.

I don't think, a single HT piece confers any notability to the organisation. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close The AFD was open for 21 days from 20th August to 11 September 2018 and was closed as No Consensus here on 11 September 2018 .It is being reopened on 11 September.While no one has nothing against a renomination but feel it should not reopened immediately after just 1 days.If one is unhappy with the closure they can discuss with closing admin or take it WP:DRV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards, The closing admin noted No prejudice against renomination.Sorta NPASR. ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have removed all references to the own website that were used as source. Then I removed a passing mention that was used as source. Then I removed two non-independent (Jesuit) sources, that were in fact identical albeit in different languages. So now there is an article what is largely unsourced, with the exception of one part of their work. No sopurces about the organisation itself and the tone and style of the article are still promotional. The Banner talk 17:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article about a subject with no notability. I searched and could not find SIGCOV. I removed along promotional section of the article that had a dozen or so CN tags. What's left is basically nothing. This AFD is appropriate, as the last AfD had no logical keep votes. It was all SOURCESMUSTEXIST and ILIKEIT, as someone pointed out there. The first keep vote it had said "well they have 42 staff, they must be notable." Thus the last Afd made no policy-driven keep arguments. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: can you please take a look a this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said "no prejudice against renomination", so I'm ambivalent about this. I have no strong opinions on whether the article stays or goes. That said, going immediately to a second AfD is mildly disruptive - have all the participants in the first AfD being pinged? If not, why not? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I think your statement was really ambiguous.A closing administrator cannot have a prejudice against a renomination, shall it occur after a considerable period of time and going by a literary reading, it is sort of unnecessary.To my eyes, it thus resembled WP:NPASR.Mildly disruptive, probably.But, given the quality of the debate from the other camp, I don't bother any. Pinging @GSS and Peterkingiron:-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD. (Jzsj is blocked and has got a Twinkle notification, at any case.....).At any case, some fresh eyes will be good enough:) ∯WBG^converse 11:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Atlantic306::-Since, you've participated in the previous AfD.∯WBG^converse 15:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just like the previos AfD, this one should be closed as delete unless policy based arguments are made in favor of retention. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand by my previous vote that a Google search for "Workers Development Union" yields 58 results and none of them provide anything more than a passing mention including the soruces provided above by the creator and most of them are not even reliable so fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Food and Agriculture Organization specialized agency of the United Nations has devoted a chapter to this Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh with regard to there success in working with the Kurubas in marketing wool.It has also written about this along with similar success cases from Kyrgyzstan ,Mongolia and Argentina .FAO ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEALTH pg 17-28 . Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh (SAS), an NGO has developed a pilot project to help Kuruba women in Belgaum district in Karnataka to make and sell products made from the wool of the Deccani sheep."As per pg 44".Have added references. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of reliable sources coverage above together with the Hindu Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I haven't taken the time to review this fully (hence, weak), but I did look at the sources added by Pharaoh of the Wizards.
"The Hindu : Karnataka / Belgaum News : A big, overseas market for coarse wool is waiting to be tapped". thehindu.com. Retrieved 19 September 2018. talks about "A Belgaum-based NGO", but doesn't mention the subject by name.

fao.org http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1283e/i1283e01.pdf. Retrieved 19 September 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help) also talks about an NGO, but not by name.

researchgate.net https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273001028. Retrieved 19 September 2018. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help) again, no mention by name.

FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. 2010. ISBN 9789251064535. Retrieved 19 September 2018. Unfortunately, I was unable to see the specific page cited.

~~So, I don't see how any of those contribute to WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing my opinion to keep, per Pharaoh of the Wizards's explaination about the naming confusion. I'd still like to see more sources, and especially sources with a wider audience, but I think we've got enough to pass WP:ORG, if just barely. WP:UE notwithstanding, we might do better to change the title to Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh, since that seems to be the only way it's referred to in sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: .The organisation is referred by its Indian name Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh in the 3 The Hindu refrences not by Workers Development Union and Food and Agriculture Organization does refer to it by its name Shramik Abhivrudhi Sangh in this pg 20.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that in my first nomination. But the sources you are adding just add more of the same to just one part of their work. But unfortunately, they say nothing in depth about the organisation. The Banner talk 20:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the changes and high quality sources added by Pharaoh of the Wizards, which push this over WP:ORG ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:24, 19 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Diamond[edit]

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

Does not satisfy general notability or WP:NACADEMIC as written. Google search shows that he did write a paper on why parents forget that they have left their children in hot cars, which is one step beyond knowing that he exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is also an expert witness on Forgotten baby syndrome. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I see no "also". Leaving children in hot cars is the same as forgotten baby syndrome. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "also" applies to his expert witness status, as well as his academic status. He did not just "write a paper" on this but is a widely sought authority for criminal trials, and widely quoted in mainstream media. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing any significant coverage in RS. NickCT (talk) 22:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:21, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing Google Scholar citation counts of 1834 ("Aβ peptide vaccination prevents memory loss in an animal model of Alzheimer's disease"), 1327 ("The stressed hippocampus, synaptic plasticity and lost memories"), 678 ("Inverted‐U relationship between the level of peripheral corticosterone and the magnitude of hippocampal primed burst potentiation", with Diamond as first author), etc. To me that's easily enough for WP:PROF#C1, even in a high-citation field such as neuroscience. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's not merely that he wrote a paper on children in hot cars, as he nomination states. He appears to have been the go-to expert on children in hot cars for national and international media for years, to the point that there are so many news stories about it that it makes it difficult to find news stories about anything else he has done. I think he passes WP:PROF#C7 for this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a neuroscientist, and he might even be a very good one, but his notability has not yet been established. Ira Leviton (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think David Eppstein is right about WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David. A clear pass of WP:PROF based on scholarly impact and media coverage of his research on children in hot cars. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because his research is pretty important on stress and ... umm ... forgetfulness. Bearian (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has achieved notability on the grounds of academic status.--Ipigott (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The article has gone from 1 ref to 7 refs since the start of the afd, it is now a very obvious keep. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. Arguments for redirecting are more in line with policy than those presented by "Keep" !votes. (non-admin closure) Strikerforce^Talk 15:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jethalal Gada[edit]

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

Not follow MOS:TVCAST or Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Characters_and_other_fictional_elements. Treats character a real person. Covered in List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters. Only one ureliable reference. Nizil (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The subject is the central character^[1] in the longest running sitcom (over 10 years) of the indian television history and many mainstream sources have pages dedicated to him [19] , [20], [21] , [22], [23]... Also "Jethalal" has received widespread popularity over the years, has definitely become a household name and is regularly appearing on every show of this very popular sitcom since past 10 years^[2]. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the aticle. Subject is treated as a real person in the article and there is lack of sources in the article because there are not many references discussing about the character in real world sense. We already cover this information in main sitcom aricle as well as in characters article. Why we need a separate article on a single character if we already have an article on characters of the sitcom? Please see MOS:TVCAST. Most references you listed above are in-universe information or provide little information about Jethalal character. Regards,-Nizil (talk)

"Why we need a separate article on a single character"? -- Because he is the central character appearing in each and every episode of the longest 10 years running most popular sitcom series of india .. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is a central character of a long-running show but look at the article which has only "in-universe" information. There are not much references on the "real world" information about the character. I am asking the reason for a separate article because we have already separate List article for characters. -Nizil (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Taarak Mehta's Jethalal Dilip Joshi shocked by Dr Haathi aka Kavi Kumar Azad's death". https://www.hindustantimes.com/. 2018-07-09. Retrieved 2018-08-28. ((cite news)): External link in |work= (help)
^ "Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah: It's been 10 years, 2500 episodes but Tapu Sena, Gokuldham members feel like it's just the beginning". Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 2018-08-28.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Nizil. -Gazal world (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - FYI, there are separate pages for Myrcella Baratheon, Rickon Stark, Viserys Targaryen, etc of A Song of Ice and Fire. Deal with them first, if you don't always aim to reject ""Indian"" related pages.

I am aman goyal, WP:WAX does not help. Every article is judged on its own merit. It is not about Indian or other nationality issues.-Nizil (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep- Jethalal Gada article should be kept. It is a notable soap character's article....Hamim000000 (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hamim000000, we already have separate list article on characters. Why we need separate article on single character? Do we have enough real world informaion on him to have a separate article?-Nizil (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well many mainstream media already covered Jethalal Gada. That's why I think the article should not be deleted. And one think I want to add that we created a separate article on tnkoc cast although we covered the cast in this article. So where is the problem to keep this article. He is the the central character of the show and appearing everyday in television. And all that. Rest is administrator's matter to delete this article or not. Thanks ...Hamim000000 (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is not enough well referenced real-world information to have separated article for Jethalal Gada and what is covered is "in-universe". All in-universe information on him is also covered in characters article. So in my opinion, there is no need for separate article even if he is daily appearing TV character.-Nizil (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from hundreds of popular videos, Jethalal and his popularity is very much covered in numerous sources [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29].. and i can post many more coverage but info in my trail comments and this must convince you unless there is some competitive agenda IMHO, Thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamstraw99, Jethalal is a popular character but there is already an article on characters which covers information on him. The references you posted above has no detailed information on his characters apart from telling that it is popular and successful. This thing is already covered in the character article and thus no separate article is needed IMO. If we have references on role, development, Characterization, themes, critical reception of Jethalal; I would agree to have separate article from the characters article but I could not find any details. So the subject is better served by the character article alone. -Nizil (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters.There's nothing close to a chunk of independent coverage about the character, which would have supposedly made a stand-alone article feasible.Apart from some original research and assertion(s) about the existence of other stuff, I fail to note any merit in the claims of keep !voters.∯WBG^converse 13:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah (or List of Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah characters). The current article is not based on WP:RS so I agree with Winged Blades of Godric that there is not much worth salvaging; hence WP:TNT. I did not expect we would have characters from shows, but I can see we do at least have some (e.g. Shaggy_Rogers). It's not clear to me there is enough secondary independent coverage to justify its own article. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:04, 21 September 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) 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Collaborations[edit]

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

Article about an annual conference, which makes no particularly strong claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. This is "referenced" solely to a linkfarm of external links to its own self-published content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage to get it over WP:ORGDEPTH or WP:EVENT. As always, every event that exists is not automatically entitled to use Wikipedia to promote itself -- but neither the text nor the quality of referencing are offering strong reasons why this would qualify for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published sources have been used for promoting this event and nothing more than this can be found. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major national conference going back decades - important part of Australian LGBT history. Needs cleanup, not deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep unreferenced articles just because somebody asserts that the topic is "major" and "important" — what would actually need to be shown to get this kept is that reliable source coverage actually exists for it to be cleaned up with. Media coverage about this is who has to tell us that it's "major" and "important" enough to have an encyclopedia article — an unreferenced assertion of importance is not enough all by itself, because anybody could simply say that about anything if they didn't actually have to show the sources to prove it. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources proving notability, and WP:PRIMARY seems to be violated a lot here. Potentially a violation of WP:SOAP. Kirbanzo (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete reluctantly. It is very easy to find references to this event going back over many years but they all seem to be non mainstream and-or not sufficiently independent. To me it looks like a case of systemic bias in main stream media - hence it fails on lack of WP:NEXIST to support GNG. (Not the first time WP falls victim to its own well intentioned policies.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:20, 14 September 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 17:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Union Times Today[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2010. An admittedly cursory Google search shows some blogs, a couple basic profile pages (that appear to be submitted by the subject), and their own social media pages. Fails WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I agree. My searches also indicate there is no way this topic can pass GNG. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This did not need to be relisted. Brad v 13:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Launched without a buzz and soon, shut it's shop, in a similar fashion.∯WBG^converse 13:03, 12 September 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 Paragons (comics). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preview (comics)[edit]

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears five times according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is linked by three non-list articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict6 9 22:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: P. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A straight forward failure of both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. No reliable secondary sources, and too trivial to merge. Strictly a background character there to add flavor, no importance. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paragons (comics), which has an entry for her with a minimum information. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Paragons page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Paragons (comics). Brad v 13:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkō-ryū[edit]

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

Nothing to show this style meets the martial arts notability standards at WP:MANOTE and lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG. The only sources are self-published and the Aikido Journal. Even if the Aikido Journal is a reliable source, the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC) Sandals1 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems the no proper search has been performed as required per WP:BEFORE, and a look in Japanese Wiki reveals plenty of sources in Japanese. A quick search for books on the subject also give sources in English - [30][31][32][33][34] some of which are also listed in the article as sources. Should qualify under WP:GNG or indeed WP:MANOTE. Hzh (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from this style's federation and books by people who teach the art do not constitute significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Can you point to coverage that actually satisfies WP:GNG? Papaursa (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one official book. I don't how you define independent, but only experts can write books on their expert subject, do you object to books written by scientists (or other academics) on the subject they specialised in or taught? If you did, you find that a large chunk of sources would need to be removed from Wikipedia as they are written by experts, and you end up with half-informed rubbish written by non-experts. Did you check the sources in Japanese as well? Hzh (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't read Japanese there would be little point in me looking at Japanese sources. However, I would point you to WP:GNG where it says ' "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.' I would say that eliminates teachers of Hakkō-ryū. Scientists would not be considered independent of the school they teach at. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONENG, non-English sources are permissible, whether you can read them or not is not relevant unless you have reason to dispute the sources. There are plenty of sources in the Japanese wiki, and you cannot dismiss the sources simply for not being able to read them. You'd also find that a lot of articles in fact require sources written by experts on their subject, e.g. in WP:MEDRS, reviews are preferred, and they can only be written by experts who understand their subjects well, which by your interpretation would not be permitted, therefore your understanding of "independent" is not what it is intended to mean. In any case, how did you know that the authors are teachers rather than people who knows their subject very well? Hzh (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I actually wrote? I didn't say non-English sources were unacceptable, I said I can't read them so why would I look at them. Feel free to use them as long as you can say in English why the source shows notability. Please note I talked about scientists and their school (not their field), which is correct analogy when talking about martial arts instructors. When the author is listed as a shihan, it's not rocket science to figure he's a martial arts teacher. It's also worth mentioning that just because a subject is notable in another language's wiki does not mean it's automatically notable in the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced, that is the point, especially when the nom noted that there is also the Aikido Journal in the English wiki. I only gave examples of books specifically on the subject, but there are in fact other English sources, e.g. Black Belt magazine - [35][36][37], and [38] (all these from just a minute or two of Googling) It is clear from the abundance of sources that WP:BEFORE had not been performed. Hzh (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs offered above check out in sufficient depth and quantity to satisfy gng. Those in the article are all primary or 404 and could be replaced to prevent a rerun of this afd in the future. Szzuk (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep The Black Belt magazine articles are OK, but only count as 1 source. The Aikiko Journal sources are a one paragraph overview of the art and an interview. The mention in the book on "The Art of Arrests" says this art's use by law enforcement is "almost non-existent". Altogether, these sources are not nothing but they also don't make this a slam-dunk case for notability. While I think Hzh has overstated the coverage of this style, I don't believe it's an obvious delete candidate either. At this time I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and hope the article gets improved sourcing. Papaursa (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by whether something is being used by the police, but by the sources about the subject. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind-Up Bird[edit]

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

Appears to fail our music notability guidelines. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. It's a shame, but I can't find anything beyond the Pitchfork review already cited in the article and a review by an unnamed guest reviewer on Tiny Mix Tapes, which won't count as an RS. There don't appear to be any more releases under the name the Wind-Up Bird other than those already listed in the article – Joe Grimm reverted to using his real name, put out a couple of self-released tracks in 2007, and then the Brain Cloud album in 2008, and has been pretty quiet ever since. So there are unlikely to be any more sources about this group from 2006 onwards. Richard3120 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a music project, no evidence of notability in the article or on google i can see. Szzuk (talk) 12:54, 18 September 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. Per the analysis of the text refs that shows them to not be significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cantus Musicus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cantus Musicus

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

I put up the request on 27 August 2018 because it does not comply with encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia and not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Other than that, in the original contents (before I clean it up) filled with references "on Text based" which cant be verified. When I cleaned it up, I intended to re-do the article but I realised then that the article has no valid references and couldn't find sources. Today, not only the article is NOT being deleted but User talk:Atlantic306 (the proposed delete patroller) reinstated the old contents. --Jay (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO criteria for notability of musical groups. Yetisyny (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has plenty of reliable sources book and magazine references which can be verified through a library. Text references are acceptable and should not be removed which the nom did, not all references or even any at all need to be web based, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atlantic, have you really checked all the references given in the article? I spent 2 days trying to find sources for most of them but couldn't find. Some of the links pointing to "blank pages" or pages without the contents mentioned. As mentioned, I was trying to improve the article until I realized that most of the contents have no sources, in which we cant tell whether they are true. --Jay (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as Atlantic306 stated as per text refs. There are a lot of refs that wouldn't be suitable, but sufficient that would be (reviews etc) for notability to met. Additionally, while there is often a concern that text refs can be used to hide a lack of notability, this definitely doesn't read or appear as such, even discounting any AGF Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nosebagbear, I was not referring to text reference only but overall contents and "link" references given - in which most are not accessible. Look at Germany embassy links and many more. I have searched on the net, some of the events mentioned cannot be found. Read my reply to Atlantic306. Secondly, the group is not noted enough but the contents are overrated. Some of them are based on "the author's opinion". Addition: The choir group has no website but a Facebook only. In their Facebook, they pointed Wikipedia as their website. It looks like it is used for marketing purposes --Jay (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the sourcing comes from programs and interviews. In my opinion this very closely resembles original research. Further, the writing style is subjective, promotional, and over-detailed considering the claimed notability of the subject matter. I agree that wikipedia is being used here as a supplement for a website for the group, for advertising purposes, and that notability is not verifiably supported. Zortwort (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still thinking about this, but am currently inclined towards deletion. The references and the article itself are heavily "padded" with material that has nothing whatsoever to do with the choir. This section is a prime example. The sole reference provided there [39] does not even mention this choir let alone support the assertion "Cantus Musicus has been accompanied by various pipe organists playing the Riddell-Eminent pipe organ in St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Kuala Lumpur, on a number of occasions." There are multiple examples of these shenanigans in the references especially in the lead paragraph which asserts that various people have praised the choir. That and the obvious COI of the single-purpose accounts who are the principal editors of this article leads me to highly mistrust the putative contents of the offline sources. Basically, this is a small amateur choir that sings occasionally in church services and at minor events for charities, local organizations, and embassies. There is no evidence whatsoever that it passes any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Nor, is there much indication that it passes WP:GNG. Given that it has been in existence for 15 years and is still performing, there should be much more independent coverage available in the mainstream Malaysian press. All I have been able to find are two reviews in the "Community" section of The Star (2006 2017) and this one in the now online-only Malay Mail. References consisting of concert programs and announcements do not attest to notability. If this article is kept, it will need to be drastically pruned solely to what can be verified and will need a major copy edit for neutral point of view and encyclopedic content and tone. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per VdT, fails our notability requirements for organisations. Its own concert programmes and the like cannot be considered independent reliable sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Some of the "references" are not even that. In the current version, there are 6 citations that merely repeat the name of the event (footnotes 2, 11, 14, 15, 25, 30). There are many others which fail to mention the choir at all, but simply link to biographies of people they have allegedly collaborated with or places where they have allegedly performed (footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9. 10, 11, 13, 40, 43, 45). Two more (those supporting alleged praise of the choir by various musicians) refer vaguely to an "interview" with the artist but give no indication that these interviews were ever published (footnotes 1, 5). This is what I meant above by the article being heavily (and misleadingly) "padded". Then we have footnote 49, a brief article in a local UK paper about an unfortunate woman who threw herself under a train. It mentions at the end in one sentence that she had been a former member of this choir when she was living in Malaysia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cantus musicus" seems to be the latin for "a musical air" [40] or "harmonious singing" [41]. It appears in hundreds of sources in GBooks, though many cannot refer to this choir because they were published long before 2003. Even if this choir was not notable (no comment on that yet), we might well want this page name for its original meaning. James500 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Actually, "cantus musicus" is a later term for "cantus figuratus" and means the same thing [42]. It is used in contrast to "cantus planus". If this article is kept, it should be disambiguated as Cantus Musicus (ensemble). Incidentally, there's a Swiss early music ensemble called "Cantus Figuratus". Voceditenore (talk) 08:57, 18 September 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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Freedman Gallery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no in-depth coverage, only routine listings, the history also shows single purpose accounts, undeclared paid editing and conflicts of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't yet looked for sources, but Carl Freedman (the gallerist) seems notable. Merge or redirect are viable alternatives to deletion. I have updates some articles that didn't link to the gallery. There are now eight artists' biographies that link to Carl Freedman Gallery. Vexations (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a frieze (magazine) review of a Thilo Heinzmann show at Carl Freedman Gallery. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this: https://frieze.com/article/thilo-heinzmann it can only be used to say that Thilo Heinzmann had his first solo exhibition with Carl Freedman Gallery in 2009. There is no other information about the gallery in that article. Vexations (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I neglected to link to it. A review of an exhibition at an art gallery tends to confer notability on the gallery. We already have an article on Carl Freedman Gallery. The question here is not whether a source can provide additional information for our article. The question is whether or not notability can be established for the gallery. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lazimah[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified, no evidence of notability outside Wikipedia derived listings etc. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, uncited, three-word "article" of dubious accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Failed to be called as an article. Stubs are longer than that -Jay (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There might be a real place with this name but it's not where the article claims it is. [43] As of now this article serves no purpose except to confuse readers with inaccurate content. --Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Sagar Career Institute Limited[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. 4 of the 5 sources are affiliated and the 5 th is a passing mention Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. But, does this even pass a combination of A7+G11?.....∯WBG^converse 13:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not but I am more and more convinced that a deletion discussion is actually better in anything but the most obvious and blatant cases because a CSD deletion can be recreated and as anyone apart from the creator can contest the CSD we often end up with an Afd anyway. And a delete consensus allows us to G4 and this can only be legitimately removed by an admin. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this meets notability guidelines, references fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khatm Kabir[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. 'Khatm Kabir' means 'A lot of stamping' in Arabic, which just sounds odd. Additionally, the pin puts it on the East coast of the UAE and Umm Al Quwain is on the West Coast. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, inaccurate, uncited three-word "article". Please also note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too short, not useful at all. The article is not even passed as stub --Jay (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awanat, Umm al-Quwain[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to settlement of Falaj Al Mualla. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, inaccurate, uncited three-word "article". Please also note that the nominator has lived in the UAE for 25 years. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In agreement with the nominator. If the pin is correct (no sources), this would be a neighborhood of Falaj Al-Mu'alla, itself an extremely short article. gidonb (talk) 08:21, 12 September 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against women in Ukraine[edit]

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

The problem is definitely exaggerated. One third of all women in the world suffer violence against them. In WHO report for a selection of European countries (including Ukraine) this percentage makes up 25% (1/4 only). Per this Ukrainian study it's even lower - 22% of women aged 15-49 experience some type of physical violence or sexual violence. See also this article on gender equality in Ukraine. Since 2017 domestic violence is criminalized. So generally, the topic of this article is made out of thin air Piramidion 09:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, this article talks about violence against women in Ukraine, which exists. Saying that it's not a big problem is not an argument, as that violence exists nonetheless. Second of all, even if it is "just" 25%, that is still a huge lot – this is obviously an opinion, just like yours. Perhaps the article itself needs some improvement, but that does not mean it should be deleted, because it discusses an issue that exists, regardless of its size. Moreover it does look like certain UN agencies have raised this issue and talked about this topic, which in my opinion proves that this topic deserves its own article. BeŻet (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that there should be an article with this exact name scheme for every other country, including Poland. Do you want me to create one? Because as I said - the problem is exaggerated. Because what about violence against men? Because if this kind of an article should exist, it should be centered on domestic violence, not just violence against women. Or another article named "Violence against men in Ukraine" should be created as well, because why not? Such a thing does exist as well. Otherwise this is not an encyclopedic approach. --Piramidion 09:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create articles for other countries. Is violence against men in Ukraine at similar levels to that of women? If so, create one too, but I'm pretty sure that, like in other countries, violence against women is a lot bigger problem than violence against men. BeŻet (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're being inconsistent here: "Saying that it's not a big problem is not an argument, as that violence exists nonetheless." - these are your words.--Piramidion 10:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being inconsistent. Violence against men exists in Ukraine, and everywhere else. What I'm saying is that if we talk about violence against women in Ukraine, that does not mean we automatically have to create articles for every single country and also about violence against men. BeŻet (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about "having to create", I talk about that we "should be able to create", that is, those articles shouldn't get deleted per some kind of notability guidelines, because "More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male", or "The 1975 National Family Violence Survey (Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family, Straus et al.) found men and women equally abusive", or "A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims", or the WHO report Injury and violence kill more men than women (and that makes up the inconsistency). If this percentage of women suffering violence in Ukraine is enough for an article, then it should be enough for other countries as well. Am I correct? Or do I misunderstand something? If the final decision of this discussion would be "keep", it should mean that it can be used as a precedent for creating other similar articles.--Piramidion 12:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your main argument was that the problem is exaggerated. Your sources include statistics regarding United Kingdom, not Ukraine. Regardless, in this particular case, the topic of violence against women in Ukraine has been raised on multiple occasions on multiple levels, including national and international. Women are still on average twice as likely to be be victims of domestic abuse around the world. We can create additional articles about violence against men in a specific country if there are strong reasons for that, e.g. the problem is widely discussed and has an impact. Not to cater for some men's fragile egos. BeŻet (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I got your point. If the topic is discussed widely and has drawn some public attention (violence against women did, violence against men did not), then it deserves an article in Wikipedia. If not - it doesn't. Am I correct? And yes, the sources were random, because I did not talk about Ukraine only. If we talk about Ukraine, 30% of calls about domestic violence had been made by men but that doesn't really matter for Wikipedia, if I got you right.--Piramidion 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to your own stats, women are over twice as likely to call the hotline, which makes it more notable. This situation is not symmetrical, therefore it isn't equally important to create an article regarding violence against men in Ukraine. BeŻet (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The dismissiveness and whataboutism on display above is shameful and irrelevant. This is clearly a notable topic; there are several good sources already cited in the article, and finding dozens more is trivial [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Discussing the possibility of creating articles in an encyclopedia on adjacent topics and on the same topic for other countries is "shameful and irrelevant"? Or you just chose not to notice my conclusion "otherwise this is not an encyclopedic approach"? Or perhaps you call my suggestions to create other articles a "whataboutism"? Or what was that comment of yours?--Piramidion 12:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Saying that violence against Ukrainian women is "definitely exaggerated" and not of encyclopaedic significance because "only" a quarter of them suffer it is shameful. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it! I knew, that "only" will draw attention of some moralists ("only 1/4" compared to "1/3" in the world - that was the context of that word, but no, your moral standards don't let you understand that). No, this is encyclopedia, and I don't really care about what you perceive as "shameful" here. Or is there any kind of censorship that prevents from providing these numbers? Oh, btw, about "exaggeration", take a look at these charts and this table and compare the data for Ukraine to the data for other countries. --Piramidion 13:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, you're citing wrong policy, as my primary arguments had nothing to do with this kind of stuff.--Piramidion 13:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Existing sources clearly satisfy general notability. Any NPOV issues can be addressed by editing. I see no discussion of NPOV at the article talk page or in the edit history. Gab4gab (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address this if the decision would be "keep". --Piramidion 14:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article and provided above are more than sufficient to establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. Even if it's true that violence against women in Ukraine is less severe than in other places, that's still a topic worthy of an article. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why such article gets nominated for AfD, but sources given should be enough to keep under WP:GNG. If there are errors, then change it, rather than nominating it for deletion. I also think the first sentence needs to be rewritten (the body of text mentions alcohol, so which is it?). Hzh (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally "class of crime in country Y" is notable (as usually criminology studies in the particular country as well as news reports in the particular country will address the topic within the country) - and this seems to be no exception. The article itself could be improved, but it is sourced and it seems there are more sources available. There might be an argument to be had regarding a merge (not sure to what), but definitely not deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per references. This goes for WP:GNGBabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable as debated above. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret detention centers of SBU[edit]

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

An original research based on yellow journalism. There're no reliable secondary sources that could confirm existence of this kind of detention centers. Piramidion 08:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I consider the United Nations to be a reliable source, and a UN report directly states that such detention centers exist as per The Times article (underline emphasis mine):

The UN report documents hundreds of cases of illegal detention, torture and ill-treatment of detainees — both by pro-Russian armed groups and by government agencies. It draws attention to prisoner abuse and murders by pro-Russian rebel groups, but also exposes the scale and brutality of Ukraine’s government-backed torture programme for the first time, as well as the existence of five secret government detention centres.

Additional sources exist that verify the secret detention facilities, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. As such, this certainly is not original research. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of notable and reliable sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable controversy. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC) See for exampe: Kyiv Post; Human Rights Watch; Amnesty International, such as here:[reply]

The release comes after Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch exposed the use of torture and secret detention by both Ukrainian authorities and pro-Russian separatists during the conflict in eastern Ukraine in a joint report “‘You Don’t Exist.’ Arbitrary Detentions, Enforced Disappearances, and Torture in Eastern Ukraine” published on 21 July.

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and sourced. However, there may be scope for a merge/expansion (the current article seems to focus on use of the detention centers for the Ukraine/proxy-Russia conflict) to cover detention by the SBU more broadly (perhaps in SBU) - or - alternatively - changing the title of this article.Icewhiz (talk) 10:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a lot of exhaustive sources including UN reports. I'm going to add a few more ones to expand the article, for example The Telegraph and so on. Thanks. --Axel Staxel (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty clear GNG pass from sources showing in the article. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 17 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of cheetahs, jaguars and leopards[edit]

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

Prod removed by article creator. A random comparison of three species based on some superficial characteristics, but excluding other felids with the same or similar charactieristics for unclear reasons (e.g. the oncilla or serval).

This was created as a reaction against the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar versus leopard. Fram (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC) Fram (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a random comparison, as discussed below. Leo1pard (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the same arguments as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaguar versus leopard. "Comparative taxonomy and physiology of Panthera", fine and on firm ground (no cheetahs though...); "Comparison of some arbitrary species that kinda resemble each other", no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add: there's a lot of going-on below about online questions in the vein of "what's the difference between..." - but the fact is that I can unearth these for any two superficially similar animals or types of animals you care to mention - mice and shrews, whales and manatees, birds and bats, arachnids and crustaceans, snakes and legless lizards, on and on. And the answers to that can be found on Wikipedia - in articles on mice, shrews, whales, manatees, etc. An encyclopedia is not in the business of having an article addressing any question someone might ask, but rather collating the material that can be used to answer any question. This ain't Yahoo Answers. You can see the kind of long-term, universal presence a specific "what's the difference between" question needs before it qualifies for article status in Lion vs tiger, and even that is far from uncontroversial (vide two AfDs). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above comments and add: some zoo schools hand out educational material to school kids with the kind of intellectual level of this page. BhagyaMani (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then see what happens next. Leo1pard (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is stuff like this^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] of the school level? Leo1pard (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My above comment referred to the content of this page. These references neither justify this wiki page nor similar comparisons in an encyclopedia. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As if your references won't justify what you do elsewhere. The content in all of the references is too complicated to apply to a school level. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the fact that this article is not about only 2 species, but about 3 species, and that for example, other than the link to this article, there is no information on the cheetah in the article 'Jaguar', or vice-versa, and articles like Leopard and Big cat do not have every specific detail regarding the 3 species, which can be found in scientific publications like this?^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the same arguments do not apply, and this is not arbitrary, it is WP:notable, as detailed below, and the introduction has been changed since the time you commented to this, to show its notability: "The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), jaguar (Panthera onca), and leopard (Panthera pardus) are three species of felids that are known for having yellow or tawny fur marked by spots.^[6]^[7] Due to their physical similarities, they could get mistaken for one another, and so differences between them have been discussed.^[8]^[6]^[9]" Leo1pard (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Well, let's take a look at Porter1894. It mentions the cheetah in comparison to the leopard (p. 137) and to the tiger (p.240), but not to the jaguar. So this book clearly isn't evidence that the comparison of these three is a notable subject. Nowak 1999? Also a rather passing discussion of leopard vs. jaguar, no discussion of keopard vs. cheetah vs. jaguar (or siply cheetah vs. jaguar). Again, not evidence that this three-way comparison is a notable subject. Finally, Nowell Jackson: again, I can't find a comparison of e.g. cheetah vs. jaguar in it, never mind the threeway comparison, but I may have missed it so feel free to give the exact page number where I can find this. Otherwise, I can only conclude that of your three main sources, none have this comparison. Fram (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Nowell and Jackson did in things like "habitat association", I can see it.^[6] Leo1pard (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide specific page numbers where they did? I see lots of pages about "habitat association", but without being more specific I can't find the page(s) where the habitat association of these three is discussed. Fram (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 3, which does not just talk about "habitat association", but also their geographic ranges and body sizes (which is what I intend the section 'Physique' to be about), and that is not all. Leo1pard (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 3 is a table comparing all cats, not just these three. They are not even in the same category... Please provide some specific evidence from reliable sources that the comparison of these three species, as a separate group (not only two of the three, not the three in a list of all cats or all big cats, but just these three) is really a notable subject. Fram (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some links (1, 2, and 3) that I posted already:

Elaine Israel: "A LEOPARD, A JAGUAR, AND A CHEETAH?"^[10]^[11]
Van Valkenburgh et al. directly compared the cheetah to the leopard and jaguar, before making comparisons to other named felids.^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a random comparison, it is a WP:notable topic: Leo1pard (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
jaguar vs leopard vs cheetah (Pinterest)
JAGUAR, LEOPARD & CHEETAH : DIFFERENCES
Differences between jaguars, leopards and cheetahs (YouTube)
Spot the Difference — Is It a Leopard, Jaguar, or Cheetah?
Major Differences Between Cheetah Leopard and Jaguar

Jaguar versus leopard:

Cheetah versus leopard:

And that is not all. Even WP:reliable sources talk about it: Leo1pard (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Porter said that the jaguar could be mistaken for a "large and thick-set panther" (leopard)^[9]

2) Nowell and Jackson compared the rosettes, heads, builds and limbs of the leopard and jaguar.^[6]

3) Nowak compared their physiques.^[8]

On the contrary, it is a random combination of three species. You give us some mentions of two-by-two comparisons, including loads of unreliable ones. You lack reliable comparisons of these three (and only these three), using things like pinterest, youtube, and blogs to make your cause; and you ignore that the same sites you use also give other very similar comparisons you don't use. E.g. compareanimal.com (not a reliable site) has, for the jaguar alone, comparisons with black panther, with lioness and with bengal tiger. Other sites make the comparison with an ocelot[60] So your choice to compare these three and not others is a random comparison based on some superficial similarities. Fram (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the cheetah, leopard and jaguar are considered to be big cats, unlike the serval for example, and I have given my reliable references for that in the content,^[9]^[6]^[8] with other external links being kept in external links, and I have my reliable references for that. I already put in reliable references like these before you commented that I did not provide any, so I have to dismiss your argument as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Leo1pard (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, none of these three sources make this three-way comparison, e.g. Nowak compares (very briefly) the cheetah to the leopard, and to the tiger, but not to the jaguar. Fram (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Nowell and Jackson did.^[6] Leo1pard (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tentative Keep This appears to be more notable than Jaguar_versus_leopard. Tentative, waiting for other votes. I also find the title far more encyclopediac. This isn't some court case. I believe the title should have an additional Oxford comma per MOS:OXFORD. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked more carefully at the WP:RS and don't see key sources that specifically compare the three species. I am agree with the other newer votes that this is a somewhat arbitrary comparison of the three. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For this topic to be worthy of an article, it must have reliable, significant, secondary source coverage, not of cheetahs separately, jaguars separately, leopards separately, or big cats in general, but specifically of comparison of all three of these animals. The list of "sources" above are a collection of random, unreliable, mostly self published internet websites. If a giant list of "sources" contains not a single reliable source, then obviously this isn't a notable topic. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I already said that aside from some links (1, 2, and 3) that I posted already, there are references that directly talk about the issue of cheetahs vs jaguars vs leopards, so this is a WP:Notable topic, not a mere cross-categorization or indiscriminate collection of information, do you need more than these?^[10]^[11]^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these links come even close to being reliable sources. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific journals like this^[1] are considered reliable, according to the rules. Firstly the complaint that I did not provide any reliable sources, after I did, and now the complaint that a scientific publication like this^[1] is not reliable. Leo1pard (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FenixFeather more or less described what I was going to say. As with my comments at Jaguar vs leopard , discussing differences in somewhat similar species does not indicate notability, but just something of due weight for an identification section. If anything, this is getting into a non-encyclopedic cross categorization violating WP:NOTDIR. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I already said that aside from some links (1, 2, and 3) that I posted already, there are references that directly talk about the issue of cheetahs vs jaguars vs leopards, so this is a WP:Notable topic, not a mere cross-categorization or indiscriminate collection of infromation, do you need more than these?^[10]^[11]^[1] Leo1pard (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are exactly why deletion is justified. What you are describing and WP:DUE for content within existing articles for standard comparison of species for identification. That doesn't reach any level of individual page notability though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said that this is not a mere cross-categorization or indiscriminate collection of information, and I have my sources for that, which are already in the article, and as stated in the article, "comparisons between them (the cheetah, jaguar and leopard) have been made.^[10]^[11]^[1]" and these are not the only sources that compare the 3. If it had been the case that a comparison between the 3 was not directly mentioned in even 1 source, then what you said, that this is a cross-categorization, would have applied, and can you not see that sources like this^[1] are reliable scientific publications? In addition, the article is not WP:biased to any of the 3 mentioned species, but states what sources, including scientific publications like this,^[1] say about them, how they compare to each other, like in physical appearance. Leo1pard (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it and the jaguar versus leopard. Both of these articles are encyclopedic. If people need info about the similar look of three cats they can look for on Wikipedia. — Punetor i Rregullt5 (talk) 07:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete differences between species are already noted in each of the species articles. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, other than the link to this article, there is nothing about jaguars in the article 'Cheetah' as of the time that you said this, or anything about cheetahs in the article 'Jaguar'. and like you would often say, the main articles should not always have specific details, and this is not some random choice of species, but meant to detail what sources like this^[1] say about all 3, including details that are not in the other articles. Otherwise, do you accept that I would have put in here in the main pages? Leo1pard (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : random choice of species -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a random choice of species.^[10]^[11]^[1] For example, Van Valkenburgh et al., in their scientific journal, directly compared the cheetah to the jaguar and leopard, in things like the structure of the limbs. Leo1pard (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
About Van Valkenburgh, the only reliable source which touches the actual topic of the article; it can be read here (at least by me, this may depend on your country). There is one sentence comparing the three, on page 25: "Their elongate limbs, slender body, and small heads distinguish them easily from other similar sized felids, such as the leopard or jaguar." That's it. There's an image comparing the skull of the cheetah with that of the jaguar and that of the extinct giant cheetah, but there is no leopard there. There is a reference to a scientifc article comparing the pharynx (and bite force) of the lion, toger, cheetah, jaguar, and domestic cat, again evidence how such comparisons articles could be made for any combination of felids if one uses the very loose "it exists" rules of the keep proponents. If this is the best source, then it will be a very easy delete. Fram (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, I have added a lot more to demonstrate its notability.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[12]^[13] Leo1pard (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not any more, please. Something like "The man-eating tigers of Sundarbans"[61] has one sentence fragment about the three animals: "Several of the big cats - like the leopard, jaguar, and cheetah - have handsome spots". It continues with "Lions, bobcats and cougars are a nice tawny colour", so I guess that these three will be your next article? Notability is not shown by such throwaway comments, these are not significant coverage. So not This fashion article from the NYTimes, or BBC texts about illegal fur trade. Fram (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other references like these^[1]^[3]^[4] are there, they all talk about the 3 species, if you want, then I could add more reliable references, but you requested for no more, so I in turn would request you to take back this attempt to delete it, I have made edits in responses to what was said, besides having to deal with false allegations like that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_cheetahs,_jaguars_and_leopards&diff=859051175&oldid=859047403 I did not provide reliable sources] after I did, or that a scientific journal like this^[1] is not a reliable source, I may have to make a complaint regarding issues like this, regardless of what happens to this article. Leo1pard (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to complain wherever you want, just be aware that that will also bring your actions to the attention of more editors, which might lead to a WP:BOOMERANG. You again bring up sources which I have already shown to be negligible for this article (van Valkenburgh), or yes, not making a comparison between these three species despite your repeated claims that they do (Nowell and Jackson). Fram (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. This is natural science OR. Carrite (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not OR, I have already explained that. Leo1pard (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOTESSAY. Random collection of species (well - OK - not entirely random - it is big cats with visible rosettes/spots as adults - Lions losing their spots as adults, and tigers having stripes). Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is neither random not is it a personal essay, I have already explained that. Leo1pard (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ Van Valkenburgh, B.; Pang, B.; Cherin, M.; Rook, L. (2017). Nyhus, P. J.; Marker, L.; Boast, L. K.; Schmidt-Kuentzel, A. (eds.). "Cheetahs: Biology and Conservation (Chapter 3 – The Cheetah: Evolutionary History and Paleoecology)". Elsevier: 25–32. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804088-1.00003-4. Retrieved 2018-09-11. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ FASHION: On the Street; Protective Coloration For City Critters, vol. 138, The New York Times, 1989-04-23, p. 24 (N), 53 (L), retrieved 2018-09-14
^ ^a ^b ^c The New Wonder Book: Cyclopedia of World Knowledge. Vol. III. International Press. 1954.
^ ^a ^b ^c Nobleman, Marc Tyler (2005). What's the difference: How to tell things apart that are confusingly close. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-7493-5.
^ ^a ^b BBC wildlife, The BBC, 1991
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Nowell, Kristin; Jackson, Peter (1996). Wild Cats: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan (PDF). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group. pp. 17–149. ISBN 2-8317-0045-0.
^ Kitchener, A. C.; Breitenmoser-Würsten, C.; Eizirik, E.; Gentry, A.; Werdelin, L.; Wilting, A.; Yamaguchi, N.; Abramov, A. V.; Christiansen, P.; Driscoll, C.; Duckworth, J. W.; Johnson, W.; Luo, S.-J.; Meijaard, E.; O’Donoghue, P.; Sanderson, J.; Seymour, K.; Bruford, M.; Groves, C.; Hoffmann, M.; Nowell, K.; Timmons, Z.; Tobe, S. (2017). "A revised taxonomy of the Felidae: The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group" (PDF). Cat News (Special Issue 11). ISSN 1027-2992.
^ ^a ^b ^c Nowak, R. M. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World (6th ed.). Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 828–831. ISBN 978-0-8018-5789-8.
^ ^a ^b ^c John Hampden Porter (1894). Wild beasts; a study of the characters and habits of the elephant, lion, leopard, panther, jaguar, tiger, puma, wolf, and grizzly bear. pp. 76–256. Retrieved 2014-01-19.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Israel, Elaine (1999). The world almanac for kids, 2000. Mahwah, New Jersey: World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Israel, Elaine (2000). The world almanac for kids, 2001. Mahwah, New Jersey: World Almanac Books, distributed by St. Martin's Press.
^ Albee, Sarah; Delanee, Kate (2010-08-01). "2: The body of a cheetah". Cheetahs. New York: Gareth Stevens Publishing. pp. 15–22. ISBN 1-4339-4352-2.
^ Montgomery, Sy (2004-04-30). The Man-Eating Tigers of Sundarbans. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 18. ISBN 0-6184-9490-1.

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. clear consensus; nothing worth merging,. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theologian of Christianity[edit]

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

Incoherent personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have Theology and Christian theology. This article is redundant. As a personal essay, it also fails WP:NOT. Brad v 22:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: But we also have Philosophy and Philosopher. I agree the article is weak. The proper name is Christian Theologian rather than the current mouthful. The problem I see is not lack of notability, but the lack of good secondary sources as a foundation for the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge : I after reading over the article wouldn't exactly call it a personal essay, it seems to be strangely worded and could be interrupted as 2nd person narrating or lecturing but I don't find that to be obvious. I also would not say that the existence of the articles Theology and Christian theology rule out the validity of this even existing, wouldn't that be equivalent to saying "because there's an article about Chemistry there cant be an article about Chemists"? I do however think that it would be appropriate to merge this with Christian Theology as the 2 topics seem more similar than say Chemistry and chemists as an example again.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow opinions of users after correcting it more. Thank you for everybody. --칼빈500 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 칼빈500 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Repurpose as a list List of Christian theologians and prune. The article has a merge tag to Christian theology. I cannot support such a merge as that article is already very large and about concepts, not people. The present article has a definition (possibly inadequate); short biographies of two of Protestant reformers (which should be pruned); and a list of other theologians (which needs links).

(revised vote) REdirect to List of Christian theologians. Perhaps since the title is not an obvious search term, just delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, a badly written fork of Christian theology. Not seeing anything worth merging (primary sources used a lot...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An essay fork of Christian Theology. I can't even imagine what was intended by the phrase "John Calvin, the French theologian, the perfectionist of Protestant theology" _signed,Rosguill^talk 23:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. WP:OR and/or WP:CFORK. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Christian Theologian" -and -Userfy and/or Send to AfC for improvement. Christian Theologians are definitely a "thing", based on our List of Christian theologians. But this article has terrible WP:RS at present--that must be fixed as others have noted. It must have verifiable quality secondary sources before it is put back on-line. In the meantime, I'm okay with a Redirect to the various places suggested above, but ultimately, this article should be able to be fleshed out as full article. It's really not entirely different than Philosopher or Professor that describes the expert teachers of the discipline. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Piotrus; this is not good enough to be a useful starting point for a list of Christian theologians. – Fayenatic London 20:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosfield Electronics[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rich Farmbrough with the following rationale "No problem, this is a notable company.". Sadly, Rich hasn't added any new source to justify his claim. All I see in Google Books and such are passing mentions, and few business-as-usual press-releases style notes on acquisitions or such. This sub-stub is still unreferenced and fails to prove its notability, aside of Rich's assertions. We need sources, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added several references to the article. See also the detailed company history in a book chapter on "Crosfield, Olivetti, EMI et les autres" of which pages 226-7 are visible in Google Books. Overall, I think there is sufficient substantial, independent coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. [62] seems reliable (if niche) and in-depth. This seems sufficient to address notability concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 11 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novatore (hip-hop)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, sources found are mostly blogs and press releases that describe him as a newcomer. Fails the WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. The editor whose username is Z0 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found in search, sources appear to be almost exclusively from a minor blog website, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Saleem Khan[edit]

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

Subject lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTRESUME. Fails WP:GNG. I cannot see that he meets WP:CREATIVE either. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. He is not noted, and doesn't deserve a "personal website" on Wiki --Jay (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strictly non notable. Fails to assert WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 15 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Gaspar[edit]

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

This looks like a case of a person not meeting WP:POLITICIAN. Subject's only political office is to a county Board of Supervisors (I don't think this meets the subject-specific requirements, but check me if I am wrong here). I did find this which is not directly related to her candidacy, and the editor who created the article has an edit history that goes back to 2016 and has over 600 edits, so probably not an undisclosed paid edit, but discussion of her outside of the election cycle seems thin. A loose noose (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL with no coverage outside of routine local coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County supervisors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 just because they exist, and neither are unsuccessful candidates in party primaries — but with just a small handful of local media hits not even slightly out of proportion to what every other county supervisor in North America could always also show, this isn't showing the depth or breadth or range of reliable source coverage needed to make a county supervisor more notable than the norm for a not inherently notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG and WP:BASIC in that multiple articles published in reliable sources by journalists have devoted significant coverage (over a dozen paragraphs each) to her. WP:AUDIENCE only applies to organizations, and WP:ROUTINE to events. It is irrelevant whether this amount of coverage is higher or lower than the average amount received by an American county supervisor. FourViolas (talk) 14:32, 18 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuttery Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND scope_creep (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Re WP:NCORP Fail) It is a real registered company in Sweden^[1] and the Bandai Namco Entertainment partnership alone I think makes them notable and interesting enough to keep.^[2]^[3]. (re WP:ORGIND) It seems like the page was originated by the company or someone close to it, messy and promotional. I have removed all extraneous/'promotional' text, and have rewritten/restructured most of the page to keep it in line with similar company pages. Links and sources added where needed as well. KnowNaughtNinja (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment KnowNaughtNinja, you see to have voted twice, which is strictly illegal voting. scope_creep (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Was trying to respond to the two fails separately. Went ahead and merged the two. KnowNaughtNinja (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. Per KnowNaughyNinjas rationaleBabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while KnowNaughtyNinja did address concerns about promotional content and the like, there is still a chance it still doesn't pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG (as a partnership with Bandai Namco could not be notable in of itself). As such, while I think the article is at least keep-able until the status of it's notability is cleared up, I'm on the fence on whether to swap to a delete position or not. Kirbanzo (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's face it, all this company has to go for it are de facto rewritten press releases about its partnership with Bandai Namco. This is not enough for any notability policy I can think of. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a "real registered company" and a partnership with a notable company do not make a company notable and are not guideline or policy based arguments for keeping. Coverage appears solely in connection with that partnership; that coverage does not give much information about the company and thus fails WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references are intellectually independent and therefore fail WP:ORGIND. Also, notability isn't inherited. Topic therefore fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 16 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie would have won[edit]

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

Article de-prod'd. Fails WP:GNG. Some sources, mostly op-ed quality, say "Bernie Sanders could have won" but this was not a meme. The idea that Bernie could've beaten Trump is WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: violation of WP:OR based on the results of me combing through the article. Fails WP:GNG and seems to be a WP:NPOV violation in the fact it seems to be an opinion piece. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: obviously Kirbanzo, you have not read the article since I added 15 sources today. The meme itself is discussed by Newsweek, The New Yorker and Vice News. I also added supporting quotes and further discussion from a myriad of sources, Huffington Post, Daily Beast, Daily Kos, New York Times, The Hill and I only got off the first page of google. Damn, I thought I also added CNN. Point being there are tons of sources discussing this subject. As I said when I removed the PROD, on WP:GNG grounds alone this is clearly a notable subject. Several commentators have made it a primary theme of their programming. I think the real reason this article is under attack today is it was just added to the Bernie Sanders page, where I noticed it in my watchlist for the first time. But the article has been around for almost a year. Now that it gets some exposure, we will get more people and !votes from the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd. But that is not a legitimate excuse to delete an article.Trackinfo (talk) 02:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a meme, it's a thought or an idea, and not one that is going to be notable for a Wikipedia article. Lots of those articles you sourced are op-eds, or to sources that aren't reliable like Daily Kos and Daily Caller. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since when did memes pass WP:GNG despite the fact they didn't significantly trend or get significant media coverage (and this meme didn't really pass either, as articles "on the meme" are actually on the idea, and a Google search didn't reveal it ever trended enough)?Kirbanzo (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"After Trump’s election, “Bernie would have won” became a wistful meme, a sign of things that should have been.
— Newsweek

In the post-election climate of shock and chagrin, the phrase “Bernie would have won” caught on among young democratic socialists and other diehard Sanders supporters, and became a meme on social media. It’s a taunting counterfactual, typically tossed off with a sense of melancholy and bit of righteousness—and, often, with the aim of needling centrist Democrats who didn’t get Sanders’s appeal."
— The New Yorker

Trackinfo (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not encyclopedic content. It seems to me this is an example of WP:NOT. Discussion on this topic, presented in an encyclopedic manner, should be located within existing articles relating to the election. AusLondonder (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article can be improved, but it should not be deleted. As has been demonstrated above, the subject of the article attained significant coverage in many RS. Davey2116 (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- YouTube videos, The Daily Caller, and Daily Kos are not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Newsweek, The New Yorker, Vice News, Washington Post, New York Times and The Hill are. Do you want me to add more major media sources? I can easily go into the second page of google. Or do you want this to be reasonably sourced like every other article? The youtube links simply support the comments that each of those named commentators are using this subject as their content as evidenced by the videos showing them DOING it. You are using a superficial complaint to disparage the entire article while ignoring the facts. Trackinfo (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those sources are stating the title as a person's quoted or written opinion, not covering the existence of a meme. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please note the additional paragraph I have added, explaining the deeper ramifications of this sentiment. Whether they agree with the sentiment or not, notice every source, all major news organizations WP:RS, have to bring the sentiment behind the meme into the discussion. This meme expresses an ongoing, clearly notable (overwhelming WP:GNG, political argument.Trackinfo (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't the failed nom repository for Know Your Meme. Nate • (chatter) 13:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Trackinfo.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not actually demonstrating that this is the name of a specific meme, they're simply demonstrating that this is a statement of opinion that some people believe. Almost all of the sources here are not covering a meme per se, but are simply op-eds or interviews in which people state their opinion on this question in words. And yes, one source demonstrates that some people communicated their belief by making Bernie Sanders memes — but even then, "Bernie would have won" is the underlying idea those memes are trying to communicate and not the name of any specific notable meme in its own right. So this is a matter of somebody trying to reify an unfalsifiable and untestable opinion — it's impossible to go back in time and rerun the 2016 election to verify whether these people are correct or not — into a named thing by citing every piece of opinion journalism they can find that happens to agree with them, and then calling that a meme even though the sources overwhelmingly don't support that label. The place for any content about the belief that Bernie Sanders would be in the White House right now if he'd been the Democratic candidate in 2016 is in Bernie Sanders' WP:BLP, not in an article titled with a statement of opinion. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, Wikipedia is not a collection of memes, and we do not deal in hypotheticals. Bernie lost, end of story. Maybe we can briefly mention it on the campaign article, but that's about it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the content into United States presidential election, 2016#Post-election events and controversies. Obviously the meme exists, and reaction to the election outcome was strong. But we don't need a whole article dedicated to it--the topic in and of itself is not notable, and this article kind of smells like the beginnings of an essay, which is not what the 'pedia is for. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may have begun as a "meme," the idea that Sanders could have beaten Trump is notable, as it would have changed the course of US history to elect such a far-left president. Furthermore, it hold future relevance in any discussion of Sanders running in 2020. I believe it should be kept, and improved to remedy the objections raised above. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It didn't begin as a meme. It's analysis of the 2016 election, and belongs on those pages, not it's own. And referencing 2020 is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It did begin as a meme, mostly on podcasts like Chapo Trap House, and it's still referenced on that show and others. I haven't added those as citations as I don't remember which episodes it's used in and their back catalog is massive, but suffice to say it has a history of use outside of "analysis".--MainlyTwelve (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Podcast content isn't memes. Podcasts prove that "Bernie would have won" is a thing that some people believe — but they don't constitute proof that an opinion has turned into a meme. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly mention in Bernie Sanders or a similar article, but not notable enough for its own article. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with Selective Merge to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 something like : Post-election reaction and analysis might work for a subsection heading for this sort of coverage of misbehavior by protestors and Monday morning quarterbacking that includes some significant commentary and analysis. (And by the way, we would have won the Princeton game if the ref hadn't.... E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect though I'm not sure where (perhaps Social media in the United States presidential election, 2016); the general topic of memes related to the 2016 election is surely notable, and this is a prominent enough one to be a redirect. I don't think any of the current content should be kept/merged anywhere, though, it's a combination of NPOV violations, original research, and a coatrack for refspam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016#Notable expressions, phrases, and statements. Nothing more than an ephemeral catch-phrase. — JFG ^talk 02:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that We face two questions here: 1.) Whether to keep the content. and 2.) if the discussion continues to trend towards MERGE (retaining much of the content) or REDIRECT (retaining little or none of the content) we need to choose a target. I STRONGLY URGE editors to address BOTH of these issues. And even, if you lean MERGE or DELETE, to offer a 2nd choice (for example "DELETE as failing notability because..., but if not deleted, it should be MERGED (or REDIRECTED) to [give page name]).E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your merge suggestion best, making it "aftermath" of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, or merge. In parsing the references provided for this article, you have to be cautious as to whether they are discussing the meme or whether they are merely expressing support for the idea that Bernie would have won. My sense is that "Bernie would have won" is a commonly held (and possibly true) notion, but the meme itself is not worthy of an article. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to not be sufficiently notable. -Obsidi (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someecards[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirements. Coverage is in passing, no in-depth review; pretty much the best source is this short write up in a Wired blog, and it is not impressive, nor that reliable (blog, after all). We are not a directory of random pages, and this one doesn't seem that notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly passes general notability and the requirements of WP:WEB. There are a ton of sources (poorly formatted but obvious nonetheless) lurking in the page already like this New York Times article and there is another NYT profile this time exclusively about the company. Steven Walling • talk 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link just mentions the company in passing. It's a great source for notability of e-cards in general, because this is what the article is about. That it mentions this company in a side-story introduction is pretty much irrelevant. The second ref is better, but I wouldn't call it in-depth, plus it's half of a WP:INTERVIEW with its associated issues. Anything else you can find would help, it's a good start (but not enough to make me withdraw this nom yet).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:WEB, especially given NYT coverage above. Brad v 13:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Rugo[edit]

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

Does not satisfy either academic notability or general notability. Being director of a clinical trial program is not in itself notable. Google search shows that she exists and has given interviews, but that is not enough.

An admin moved this page to draft as undersourced, but author has moved it back, so it needs to go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your definition of needs is, but I think in this case it means that is what you want to do. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her very high h-index on Google Scholar is enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 with flying colors. I suspect that her status as a fellow of the Giannini Foundation [63] may allow her to also pass WP:PROF#C3 but I'm not sure, and it doesn't matter as her work is clearly highly cited and influential. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 02:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that "fellowshop" is just a grant that funded her postdoc, not the kind of honorary fellowship that academic societies use to recognize people who have gone beyond an ordinary full professorship. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Web of Science gives her h-index as 58 and lists 39 papers as "highly cited". I think this is enough for WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High citation counts (also on Google Scholar) give a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The article is very stubby but this source (although too close to the subject to contribute towards notability) could be used to expand it. And we don't appear to have a valid deletion rationale in the nomination statement. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 14 September 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. Vanamonde (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FitDay[edit]

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

One of many such trivial appplications; no evidence of notability for this particular one. DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. One or two brief reviews, but not in-depth. If this was a video game, it would fail the detailed video game referencing standards. As it is, it just fails WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG, unless someone can dig out a better review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article was started, and most of the contents written, in 2009 by an undeclared paid editor, banned in 2010 even under the much less strict rules at the time. The editor worked almost exclusively on the various products of Internet Brands. Most of the individual article they started then have since been deservedly deleted. That added factor, which I had not noticed when I made then nomination here ,should be enough to make even clearer the need for deletion DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 15 September 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fundisha[edit]

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

This songstress appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. She has only appeared as a featured singer on a handful of singles; and none of her own albums or singles charted. Contested prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose named singer on sleeve of two hit singles, we have articles on 1-hit-wonders, seems churlish to erase a 2-hit wonder. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- She had hits? Then add them to the article with sources, please. (BTW, !votes in deletion discussions are "keep" and "delete", not "support" and "oppose".) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage outside few paragraphs in Vibe ([64]). Perhaps some coverage is here, but can't access full view to confirm. Would her songs like Live the Life (Fundisha song) also fail notability? Music notability gives me a headache... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Many of the results are simply spam. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:01, 18 September 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.