< 22 September	24 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Ranger races[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTPLOT. Nothing in this article isn't already incorporated (or even can't already be incorporated) in some form in the other Power Rangers pages. Since most nun-human characters in Power Rangers have only appeared in a single season, are one-off characters, one-off group of characters, or are the only member of their race to appear, there's no way this page can be expanded in such a manner that listing every single race would actually be useful. The creation of this standalone article is essentially a copy of what's already stated in the character lists and is more suitable for the Power Rangers Wikia. —Mythdon 23:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is one of the cruftiest things I've ever seen. Not a single source. Suggest that Wikia is a better place for this cruft. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smash with a Megazord pure fancruft that is already on Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of this is sourced or makes any claim of having coverage outside of minor plot details of episodes of the TV series. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah this is just basically fan made one that really is not needed and really should go to FANDOM Not Homura (talk) 12:22, 29 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) 00:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Fair[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:NMUSIC. Meets none of the criteria set out on the policy page. A quick search using multiple terms shows a mess of trivial social media links, and close to zero independent verifiable sources. Hiàn (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is responsible for one of my favourite progressive house remixes of all time (his remix of Max Graham's "Tell You"), but apart from a brief period in the mid-2000s when he was popular in progressive house circles, he hasn't ever been a big name, even in dance music. The two mix albums mentioned in the article and a handful of singles are the only things he's produced, and none of them have got anywhere near charting. Mr. Fair has scaled back his DJ career to concentrate on web development, and rarely plays outside Toronto these days, so scope for improving this article in future is going to be very limited. Richard3120 (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mr. Fair does not appear to have received substantive coverage in independent reliable sources, and thus fails the basic WP:GNG. There is no specific claim to notability, and nothing to indicate any special circumstances under WP:MUSICBIO. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have reliable source coverage about him to carry the article — but even on a ProQuest search, I got a mix of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and tangential name matches to a non-notable house league soccer player in a suburban pennysaver. As always, it's not what an article says that determines whether it gets to stay around here or not, it's how well the article references what it says. Bearcat (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Search turned up no major results, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:05, 30 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. Withdrawn; some form of this article (possibly one narrowly focused on South Africa) is not getting deleted. I'll address my many other concerns on that talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

White genocide conspiracy theory[edit]

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

A mix of WP:OR and BLP violations. I'm referring this for deletion based on an WP:ANI thread. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Was this the ANI thread you are talking about? PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; we don't delete obviously notable topics just because one of the editors involved is problematic. I wouldn't object to reverting to the version before Perspex started editing it and pretending the last month didn't happen. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the contents of that revision regarding Donald Trump Jr. are still likely a BLP violation. has been accused by mainstream media of being either a believer in the conspiracy,[87] or pretending to be an advocate for political gain is both bad writing, and a clear attempt to smear somebody. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Iridescent. Notable enough, as usual we have to be careful about BLP implications; the article can be fixed. —Paleo Neonate – 22:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but narrow focus. As it currently stands, the article documents two different conspiracy theories: (A) Whites are being oppressed in "predominantly white countries, or supposedly white-founded countries" (plural). (B) The South African government has a plan to seize land from white farmers. The problem with combining theories A and B into a single article is that it contains a long list of White genocide conspiracy theory#Advocates and alleged advocates. Some people are included in this list because they believe in B, but since the lede defines A as the topic of the article, the clear implication is that the folks on the list believe A. That violates BLP policy. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom the original article (circa 2015) was about the meme "white genocide"; whether this refers to any specific theory is a later addition. It has since evolved into a catch-all. If there is a theory (or far more likely, several theories) that can be described without making any BLP violations, go for it. Otherwise, the page should be deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lawrence King: - one problem is that this term appears to mean something very different in South Africa than it does in the United States. Based on one Trump tweet, there is a cottage industry trying to imply that they mean the same thing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However, it seems to me that a Wikipedia article can focus on one meaning of a term even if that term has other meanings. More importantly, the name of this page is not "White genocide", but rather "White genocide conspiracy theory". So even if the former is used in different ways in different countries, is the latter term used in multiple ways?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence King (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I have no doubt that an article on this subject could be done. I'm less sure that we should even start with this article as a base. There is so many BLP problems in this article that trying to fix it may take more time than just starting over from scratch. Either way, I think it should be moved to draft while the substantial problems with the content of the article get worked out, so I suggest we WP:DRAFTIFY it. If we do keep it, I do think a substantial revert to a prior version would be required. -Obsidi (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a consensus to re-purpose this to just be about South Africa, and to put content about The Great Replacement conspiracy theory (which is also a "white genocide conspiracy theory") or white-nationalism in other articles, I'll withdraw this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Came across this a while back. It was started by a now-indeffed user with some problematic content. Since then, multiple more experienced editors have made improvements. I haven't had a chance to review the recent flurry of activity, but worst come to worst it can be rolled way back. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:38, 24 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 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy[edit]

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

I could not find any independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searching JSTOR gave zero results, and EBSCO found four articles, but all four were written by its inventor. The article may be a WP:COPYVIO because it restates the content of the treatment model found in copyrighted material, in the same level of detail. For example, the section Treatment Structure and Targets states how to administer this therapy. It is a close paraphrase of copyrighted material from the American Journal of Psychotherapy, including specific details like the number of weeks of therapy and duration of each session. (See Lynch, Thomas R.; Hempel, Roelie J.; Dunkley, Christine (2015). "Radically Open-Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Disorders of Over-control: Signaling Matters". American Journal of Psychotherapy. 69 (2): 149. Retrieved 23 September 2018.)

The article also appears to violate WP:SPIP. A significant number of the sources are authored by the inventor of this therapy, and User:TenZero10, who created the article, has a self-identified COI for being on a student committee for the company that promotes the use of this therapy, which pays students up to $1,000 to perform research that supports their theories. The section Training and consultation is an obvious WP:PLUG for the company, which sells the inventor's book.

Thank you for your review of this nomination. Romhilde (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article crerated by a single purpose, CoI editor, likely the same individual whose original name was RODBT. The name of that editor was blocked two days earlier for appearing to represent a group, organization or website. RODBT was also a single purpose account which had created the article Thomas R. Lynch, the promulgator of this therapy. I think Radically Open Dialectical Behavior Therapy is grossly promotional and should be speedily deleted under G11. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hella promotional in style and content, obvious COI issues, lack of coverage independent of originator, overly detailed. Clearly should not be covered by someone with a buck to turn or a reputation to make on the strength of it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dialectical behavior therapy, since it is related to that. Leo1pard (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge, no redirect, This isn't a compelling search term for Dialectical behavior therapy, and this article has nothing to add to Dialectical behavior therapy. --Bejnar (talk) 03:27, 27 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 19:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden Lives[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources are clearly unreliable (English and Persian), and the article is part of a walled garden with Edris Armaghani and PAJ animation studio, which have also been nominated for deletion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 19:46, 25 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 19:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Justice Center[edit]

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

Delete Notability isn't inherited. There are no in-depth references on this organization that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some funded lawsuits have notability, that does not give the Liberty Justice Center notability. Mentions of the center are in passing when covering the legal cases. As the nominator said, there seems to be no in depth coverage of the center itself. Lacking notability under the guidelines is a reasonable basis for deletion. There is no information need that such an article might fill, beacuse there is no significant information available in reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the organization that argued Janus v. AFSCME in front of the Supreme Court, which was a landmark case this summer. That makes it pretty notable. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all the cited work is extremely minor; for the one significant case, they were only one of the great many organizations involved. I do not see evidence that it was one of their attorneys that participated in the oral argument--and , if so, it would contribute to the notability of that attorney, not of them. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV or Merge to Illinois Policy Institute (which also currently has an AFD active, so the merge option would only be applicable if that article is kept). Marquardtika (talk) 18:58, 26 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 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic MRSS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BEFORE search doesn't seem to turn up anything like independent reporting. The one Times of India reference might be considered a notability reference, but it's a fairly brief profile including quotes from the founder. See also WP:Articles for deletion/MRSS India. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet the minimum coverage of the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline. I could write a specific analysis for each citation currently in the article and expalin why it is not considered a good source for notability, but suffice it to say that rehashed press releases and quotations from company members do not qualify. Just because a company is listed does not make it notable, it still needs to meet the guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 23 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 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MRSS India[edit]

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

None of the references appear to be independent notabilty references. Perhaps Redirect to parent company Majestic MRSS if that article can survive. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much of the cited sources are basically rehashed news releases from the company. There appears to be a claim to notability in that it is the largest independent marketing research company in India. However, it is unclear what independent menas there, since it is a subsidiary of Majestic MRSS. There does not seem to be adequate coverage under the WP:CORPDEPTH guideline to provide notability for either MRSS India or Majestic MRSS. So I recommend deletion rather than a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 23 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) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahvaz National Resistance[edit]

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

Repetitive and equal to Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz Fatemi ♪ 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep: Not at all equal. The ASMLA distanced itself from the 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack through its official webpage and this was relayed by WP:RS. Ahvaz National Resistance is likely a subgroup that was ejected from ASMLA in 2015 and went on to claim the 22 August 2018 terrorist attack. I was trying to get this clearer, but it's already in the article. This name was widely spread through the attack. The query currently gets 6.700 results in Google News. Wakari07 (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to a danish spokesman of ASMLA via Danish National Radio, the ANR is an umbrella organization, in which ASMLA is a part: Reference: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/talsperson-afviser-staa-bag-angreb-i-iran-vi-er-kun-aktive-politisk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.66.94 (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect~~ to Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz. This is a content fork and gives undue weight to the topic by forking; hence giving impression of standalone notability of small faction within larger organization. It's just a 3-line stub, so nothing to merge.. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC). After the expansion I agree it's a distinct splinter group. 18:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz. Mardetanha (talk) 07:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a separate splinter group and deserves its own article. Carptrash (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I understand that the recent attack constitutes a large portion of this article, which means there are legitimate concerns that it's focusing primarily on an event rather than those involved in the event, and it seems to be an organization related to the ASMLA, I would argue that this organization demonstrably has enough notability to warrant an article. As a reader first and an editor second, when a major attack is carried out by a then little-known group, I expect a place to read about them, regardless of how this young article is not in good shape. Furthermore, we shouldn't merge it into ASMLA when that article itself is quite short, and we'd establish a coatrack where half the article on the ASMLA is about a splinter group that is effectively separate from it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly distinct splinter of ASMLA. Recent attack clearly generated SIGCOV for this group.Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The movement has significant media coverage and is possibly connected to a terrorist attack. -- Evans1982 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a separate splinter group--Panam2014 (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a seperate splinter group from ASMLA. BRFC4104 (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Ahvaz National Resistance, although claiming to be part of the ASMLA, appears to be an organisation that separated from the ASMLA following a schism in 2015. Why shouldn't there be an article about it, given the group's notability? Ntmamgtw (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG w/ coverage in several sources (many not cited, just do a quick google search). Even BBC covered this... it's notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz. SharabSalam (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG a separate splinter group .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 30 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 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul Daniel[edit]

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

Inadequate sourcing in article and search to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mention in a newspaper about who will be at a festival, and a reference that does not link to an article about anything related to the individual does not notability make. --VViking_TalkEdits 13:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find any suitabale sources that would establish the subject's notability. Vexations (talk) 15:27, 30 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 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot John Crosby[edit]

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

BLP1E. a one hit wonder type thing. I prodded this a few days ago, and the prod was removed without explanation. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, none of the others listed as national record holders have aspired to articles and no article on the so called 300-game. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a case of WP:BLP1E and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. A nice achievement, but not one that automatically guarantees WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bowling a 300-game as a 12-year old is clearly WP:BLP1E; there have been no substantive changes to the article over the past decade since that game (and Google gives no hits for recent info) clearly suggesting he is not a public figure now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:23, 29 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 Cove Reber#Dead American (2017-Present). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead American[edit]

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

Not seeing how this can pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just deleted the copy-and-paste of [1] as apparent copyvio. Bakazaka (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cove Reber#Dead American (2017-Present). WP:TOOSOON for a new band project that hasn't released an album, and the target article already has a paragraph of information on this band, so redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Based on the subsequent insertion of text directly from band website into this article, seems like WP:PROMO meant to promote the album, but no prejudice against recreation if the group ever achieves notability, as long as COI guidelines (and copyright policies) are followed. Bakazaka (talk) 02:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No basis for notability, lacks coverage. No claim of notability. Redirects are cheap, so that might be okay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:19, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Millman DuFine[edit]

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

Fairly dubious notability that fails to assert WP:BIO. Only a single reference, ref 1, provides. Ref 17 is a hiring notice and fails to detail notability. Lots of refs, but few focus on the subject, most are venues or band. scope_creep (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 24 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 merge to Pivot table. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot chart[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, article reads like an advertisement for Excel. Possibly worthy of merging into pivot table. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 08:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to pivot table. I added a source that is a book chapter on pivot charts; there are other sources, too. While some of that chapter is how-to material, there is plenty of content that supports the basic description of these charts in the article. Merge of verifiable content is preferred over deletion per our policy WP:ATD. Hence, merge. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Pivot charts are real but are part of the same topic as pivot tables. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Worth a small addition but not an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pivot table, the information can fit there. Leo1pard (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pivot table; the article is crap and I see nothing to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:26, 29 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 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revd Dr John Bunyan[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Does not appear to have notability. Article cites 2 external sources that are highly niche. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete created by a sock, and no plausible claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while Chris Savage's review is quite moving, and does provide some detail, it by itself cannot provide the level of coverage required by WP:BLPNOTE. I didn't find any other significant coverage, but maybe a series of obits might, sometime in the future. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 30 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) 00:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Osigwe[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Did not play in a professional league. » Shadowowl | talk 16:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, but I do believe it meets WP:GNG. I searched Google and was able to find quite a bit of significant coverage in multiple reliable newspapers, including Premium Times and The Nation (Nigeria). I'll add them to the article if/when I get the chance.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 22:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more references now. Unless I've mistaken the reliability of some of the sources, I still believe that it meets the general notability guideline.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nfooty is too inclusive as it is, people who do not meet it and are only known in connection with football should never have articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet BASIC/GNG; NFOOTY is not met either, but is not a prescriptive inclusion criterion anyway. Sam Sailor 09:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and I think the coverage is too routine to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY, and I would agree with Papaursa about the sources being too WP:ROUTINE to meet WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Coverage is not at all routine as it includes discussions to include Osigwe in the Nigerian national team. Why would that be routine? SkyGazer 512 summarized the situation well. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: Unless I'm missing something, this is the only time Gidonb !voted in this AfD. The two users who !voted to keep were me (SkyGazer 512) and Gidonb.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the correction.

--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 02:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was wavering between keep and delete but both JohnPackLambert and Paparusa's vote rationals put me here. Sebastian Osigwe doesn't meet WP:Footy and the coverage for him to meet WP:GNG isn't enough to justify keeping the article since he so clearly fails WP:Footy. Maybe in the future if he does something outside of football the article can be recreated but right now it's a delete for me.JC7V-constructive zone 02:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:04, 30 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. No reliable sources = no article. Sandstein 19:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silver screen for short films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Sources are IMDB and some main pages of some websites. Does not meet WP:GNG. Created by undisclosed paid editor. » Shadowowl | talk 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage outside of the local reports. This also smacks of WP:SELFPROMOTE. Should this ever become a "thing" the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 17:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable short film festival. Should have been at Silver Screen for Short Films from where I have created a redirect. Notice that submission fee is USD 40 for a 15–20 min. film, but if you add a 10er and pay USD 50, you are guaranteed selection. Sam Sailor 09:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an event that doesn't make a credible claim of importance or significance, and doesn't have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG; the external links being to IMDB, arbitrary film festivals that don't mention this event, or primary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This "Silver Screen for Short Film" is very popular event occurring on every 2nd Wednesday of month consistently for last 29 month without fail. Each event is almost houseful and successfully celebrated by local filmmakers in Tampa bay area and beyond. Every month few filmmakers are even attending from out of state and gave very good reviews on social media and filmfreeway. Considering its popularity, acceptance, and supports, the board of director of the non-profit organization - SSSF Foundations, Inc, recently decided to expand it to go for its first annual film festival for short, documentary & feature films on 24 -26 May, 2019. An organizing committee is formed and is working on it. The annual film festival will happen every year in last weekend of May while monthly short film festival will still continue every month on 2nd Wednesday. I am not a good writer or editor and don't know perfectly how to write certain paragraphs and how to give the references. If any points or lines need to edited, anyone can edit in proper way or those few lines if not properly referenced can be deleted but I don't think, the whole page should be deleted as this is a REAL EVENT HAPPENING FOR LAST 29 MONTHS AND STILL ALIVE.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap florida (talk • contribs) 18:19, 30 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 19:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Eagles[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE mentions, and every time it is in coverage of another team that happened to play them. The page was created under the assumption that, as they were playing in a self-professed professional league, that they too were a professional team that would receive significant independent coverage. However, they appear to have mainly been a travel-only team that played professional teams, while being itself semi-pro, hence why there appears to be no actual coverage this team in any of its incarnations. Neither name turns up significant coverage as Maryland or Washington (Washington Eagles is extremely hard to search due to very common usage, but nothing SIGCOV of this one turned up). This article sums up their existence "the Washington Eagles, exists solely to play when another team can’t make it to the game, McCarthy said". Yosemiter (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also related and unsourced (or at least no GNG sources):

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete semi-pro football teams typically do not qualify for inclusion because they tend to not have enough coverage to surpass WP:GNG or any other notability measure. That seems to be the case here as well. There are exceptions such as Pittsburgh Colts, Oklahoma Thunder, and a few others. This team does not seem to be one of those exceptions based on a lack of coverage. A long time ago we had a discussion about semi-pro teams that may be relevant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 None of these articles have any significant independent coverage or make any claim of notability. Existing is not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability for the team, and they've been in 3 leagues in 5 years so there's no redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 per nom. Also, the discussion cited by Paul M (Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion) appears to reflect a consensus against such articles. Of course, consensus can change, but there is no GNG sourcing presented here to support the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 15:51, 29 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) 00:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke White-Lancette[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Was a removed prod with the mistaken idea that playing in a national league in itself was notable. Subject fails to meet WP:GNG. And they also fail to meet WP:NHOCKEY which requires women's players to play in the World Championships/Olympics. DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails to meet NHOCKEY, and no evidence she meets the GNG beyond scanty references in routine sports coverage (and damn little enough of that) explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability. I'd be very interested in what notability criterion the deprodder thinks "playing in a national league" satisfies. Ravenswing 17:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I saw the article's claim that she won a silver medal at the 2001 women's world championships, I thought this would be an obvious keep. However, when I went searching for a source for that claim, I found she had appeared in a couple of exhibition games with the team, but was not on the actual roster for the world championships [2]. Therefore, she fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she hasn't played in a NWHL game yet, but she's name dropped in a lot of stories. May be just a bit WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer talk 03:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:03, 30 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) DBigXrayᗙ 14:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dinamani[edit]

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

A single offline source, with no useful independent news articles about this publication found in GNews. Fails N:CORP and WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable. Please go thtough the links at this Gsearch. If you sesire specific sources, I can mention that but guess this will be enough.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google news search is insufficient. WP:BEFORE states that "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." In this case, a full search soon turns up plenty of evidence that this is a mature and respected newspaper. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess The encyclopedia hardly benefits from sub-stubs like this one, but the topic is definitely notable enough that a decent article could be written. Whether this is ever going to happen is a different matter (I trust WBG's record, but am a bit more skeptical of Andrew's, and neither is technically obliged to do anything about it anyway), and whether the topic would be better covered in a List of Tamil newspapers (the most interesting source I found was this one) or some such pending such a hypothetical future expansion is a different matter again, but the nominator here is talking about notability, and they are wrong on that front. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Godric; a Tamil newspaper that has existed for 80 years is presumed notable unless editors from the subcontinent suggest otherwise. Their own website is sufficient reference. It's conceivable that a redirect to The New Indian Express would be acceptable, but I don't know enough to endorse that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject easily satisfies WP:BASIC. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 30 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 19:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suprabhaatham[edit]

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

A single source, with no useful independent news articles about this publication found in GNews. Fails N:CORP and WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, this relatively new (August 2014) newspaper has not received much attention. In part this may be the relatively small community it serves (albeit spread over a considerable area). Fails WP:GNG requirements for significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 01:42, 30 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coding Academy[edit]

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

8.Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth). No notability. This article has been already deleted from french wikipedia for this reason. Can be redirected toIONIS Education Group. EulerObama (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understand we may have issues with users here ... does this need to be closed even if re-opened ?

These IPs are paid to make things complicated that are not.

See : [3]

In substance, the deletion of this article can be discussed in accordance with point 8 that I mentioned : there is no secondary quality source focused on the subject of the article to demonstrate notoriety.--EulerObama (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My French is good enough to see that the sources currently used in the article are entirely insufficient to establish notability. (However, my French-Google-foo is not good enough to be certain that better sources don't exist out there somewhere.) Deli nk (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs nontrivial coverage in publications with editorial control. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A rapid search shows a lot of different good sources on major newspapers like https://start.lesechos.fr/continuer-etudes/vie-etudiante/coding-academy-la-1ere-formation-que-vous-payez-une-fois-embauche-4320.php or https://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-la-coding-academy-forme-des-developpeurs-en-4-mois-et-demi-60404.html. 92.184.112.47 (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — 92.184.112.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. The two sources provided just above have convinced me + it is a college in many main cities in Europe : Paris, Barcelona, Berlin, etc. 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:89BB:5C56:DF8D:36D9 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:89BB:5C56:DF8D:36D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: WP:AFDSOCK This page is linked to a group that uses Wikipedia to promote itself, using several IPs. I remind you that using different accounts (or different IPs) to impose your point of view is not recommended. cf : [4]. Violation : WP:PAID ; WP:COI--EulerObama (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please do you have any proof of that? Because looking on your history, we can clearly see that you don't like this group and want to delete anything, and you have been blocked twice already for these reasons. So please don't hesitate to tell us if you have any proof or if you are paid by a competitor company. 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect and move Move to IONIS Coding Academy then convert article to redirect to IONIS Education Group then move to IONIS Coding Academy. Resultant Coding Academy should now be a redirect which should be converted to a DAB, primary topic pointing to to be Coding bootcamp. I would hope to hope resource to do this hopefully. As a fallback delete to clear history then recreate this page as a redirect to Coding bootcamp. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No media coverage aside from a couple of press releases. --McSly (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sargam-Nakash[edit]

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

Created by User:Jm_sigal with major problems, no sources, no indication of Notabilty. Moved to draftspace at Draft:Sargam-Nakash with comment: "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace", but User moved draft back to mainspace, or recreated it in mainspace See also numerous problems mentioned at User_talk:Jm_sigal. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially an unsourced biography of a living person (or two persons, in this case). My Google search found no reliable or independent sources, which indicates that the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced blp, hardly anything there to delete. Szzuk (talk) 18:43, 30 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 19:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator IONIS 361[edit]

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

No notability. For your information, this article has been already deleted for this reason from the french wikipedia. Another important thing to know is that this organisation create many article (inter-wiki) (with IP). Can you check if the notoriety is sufficient for you ?

This article can be merged (or redirected) with IONIS Education Group.

EulerObama (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once its gone we can attach a G$ to attempt made to rebuild the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the two main incubators in France. A quick research shows a lot of good sources on major newspapers / TV : https://france3-regions.blog.francetvinfo.fr/numerique-midi-pyrenees/2018/04/04/laccelarateur-de-startup-ionis-361-debarque-a-toulouse.html ; https://objectif-languedoc-roussillon.latribune.fr/innovation/2018-03-09/l-incubateur-ionis-361-s-installe-a-montpellier-771281.html, etc. Very notable 80.12.41.220 (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — 80.12.41.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete : No notoriety and ads. And see : [5]--EulerObama (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the two most popular incubator in France with offices in many cities. 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:89BB:5C56:DF8D:36D9 (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:89BB:5C56:DF8D:36D9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: WP:AFDSOCK This page is linked to a group that uses Wikipedia to promote itself, using several IPs. I remind you that using different accounts (or different IPs) to impose your point of view is not recommended. cf : [6]. Violation : WP:PAID ; WP:COI--EulerObama (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please do you have any proof of that? Because looking on your history, we can clearly see that you don't like this group and want to delete anything, and you have been blocked twice already for these reasons. So please don't hesitate to tell us if you have any proof or if you are paid by a competitor company. 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete no evidence of notability. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I opened the refs, they mostly relate to the founding of the incubator and give every impression this is a low key company. Szzuk (talk) 18:40, 30 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 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gili Jewellery[edit]

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

Nothing semblant to WP:NCORP can be located.Came in the headlines, in the most trivial of all manners, post the escape of it's defaulter-founder from India.

I'm even not locating any justification for a redirect. ∯WBG^converse 14:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It lacks in-depth coverage (nor did I find any) and fails WP:CORP. It does make a disingenuous claim of notability as the first jewellery brand to be retailed through departmental stores. i doubt that this was true even if limited to the Indian market. --Bejnar (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Szzuk (talk) 18:37, 30 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 Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 12:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yone Minagawa[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage about her death. There is nothing that makes this person significant. » Shadowowl | talk 14:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per GNG. gidonb (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant, as it refers to events, and the subject here is not an event. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the GNG, multiple sources over the years (heavy in 07 and 08 albeit) ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clumsy OP. This source, for example, predates her death by more than a month. She was the oldest person on earth for several month and the oldest person in Japan for over two years, so I find it hard to believe more sources like the above that just happen no longer to be online, dating to 2005 and 2006, could not be located. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowowl: You don't appear to have even read the first sentence of our article, which claims she was the oldest living person from January 2007 to August of the same year, but your OP comment above implies you think there is nothing significant about her and the sources are just routine obituaries ... in English ... for someone in a rural part of Japan ... !? It's clumsy stuff like this that gives fodder to disruptive "keepist" editors like Andrew and some others whom I will not name because they haven't !voted here yet. The fact that they are guilty of much, much worse (and clumsier) comments is no more an excuse for you than it is for them when you pull stuff like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: I withdraw this nomination. I will close it. Shadowowl on mobile (talk) 12:20, 24 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 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Beat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable company. Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of in depth and significant coverage about the company. Probably formed by a bunch of talented people, but that does not lend any inherent notability. Jupitus Smart 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mentions and general announcements do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:50, 27 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. Sandstein 19:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Longpré[edit]

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

@Rosguill: Incompetent deprod by Andrew Davidson. Prod reason still stands, Non notable filmmaker. Does not meet WP:GNG. Best claim to notability is co-directing Monsieur Pointu, which was nominated but did not win awards, which doesn't meet ]WP:FILMMAKER. » Shadowowl | talk 13:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as editor who originally nominated for PROD, de-prod never explained why article should be kept and did not make any changes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable director whose work was nominated for an Oscar. It's not difficult to find sources such as Animation: A World History. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Nominated for an Oscar. James500 (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not a measure of what the article says, it's a measure of the article's state of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James500, I think the last comment was for you. gidonb (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A before search did not find anything but directory listings and this article: [7]. As currently sourced, fails WP:GNG, WP:FILMMAKER - other sources are likely to be in French? SportingFlyer talk 07:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the journal article. With that and the book Animation: A World History, we have two good detailed sources and so WP:GNG is satisfied. No doubt there is more to find, as SportingFlyer says, and so there's no case for deletion. Improvement of the current text is a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I agreed with you on the "two good detailed sources" I would have voted to keep. SportingFlyer talk 17:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, that journal article is a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself. So it's fine for supplementary verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off, but it does absolutely nothing to assist the initial satisfaction of GNG in the first place because people do not get to self-talk or self-write themselves over GNG. And the book does very little either; it just gives him a very brief biographical blurb in a section of the book that contains brief biographical blurbs of dozens of animators, in a format that we would have called "listicle" if it had been published to a website instead of in a paper book. So again, fine for supplementary verification of facts if there were a lot more solid and substantial sourcing alongside it, but not the magic golden key to a GNG pass in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monsieur Pointu (film), without prejudice against recreation if somebody can locate better sources than I've been able to. One of his films getting an Oscar nomination is certainly a valid notability claim in principle for a filmmaker, but it's still not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to actually have any solid sourcing that goes beyond simply being able to cite routine film directories as technical verification that he existed. For starters, he was not the sole director of the film — he was one of two co-directors, and his colleague does not have a Wikipedia article at all. So if literally the only thing we can actually say or source about him is the fact that one of his films got an Oscar nomination, and the film already has its own article which says the same thing anyway, then that's grounds for his name to exist as a redirect to the article about his one notable film rather than grounds for a standalone article about him as a separate topic from the film. That said, I have access to far fewer newspapers for the purposes of digging out coverage that might have existed in the 1960s and 1970s (the period in which the bulk of his work, and his peak notability claim, exist) than I do from 1980 forward — there might have been much more coverage in Quebec newspapers than I have the ability to locate, so recreation would be acceptable if somebody can actually find evidence of that. But if all we can actually say or source about him is what's already here, then a redirect to the film conveys exactly the same information anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BASIC per chapter in the Canadian Film Encyclopedia and two paragraphs in Animation: A World History: Volume II: The Birth of a Style - The Three Markets. gidonb (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:NARTIST#4 is met. The listings in the ONF website and film festivals such as [8]. This archived bio is in the German wiki's article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough reliable sources coverage such as the Canadian Encyclopedia and book sources to just pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 30 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 The Witcher#Film and television. This is really, Merge with Draft:The Witcher (TV series) and redirect to The Witcher, but for practical reasons (i.e. the automation can't handle that), I'm going to just redirect this for now. The full history is still there, so anybody who wants to grab the current content and merge it into the draft, please go ahead and do that. The draft can get moved to mainspace when appropriate sourcing exists.

There's an interesting discussion here of the relative merits and applicability of WP:TV, WP:NFF, and WP:GNG. I don't see any agreement on that, but there is a clear consensus here that this isn't ready for mainspace yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Witcher (TV series)[edit]

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

Article has recently existed both here and at The Witcher (U.S. TV series), but was moved to draft at Draft:The Witcher (TV series) as production has not yet commenced on the series. Television series where no filming has occurred, or only a pilot has been ordered, do not typically received articles by the WP:CONSENSUS of WP:TV, in the same fashion as WP:NFF. Information available on this article can easily be moved to The Witcher#Film and television article/section until production actually commences, which, as far as I can tell, has already occurred. Neither the draft nor article currently provide further specific or detailed information, and the article also currently consists of speculated information. -- Alex^TW 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with consensus of WP:TV. No associated talk page, redirects to that of The Witcher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)

@Matt14451: Please sign all comments with ~~~~ on all discussion pages. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 08:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot. Matt14451 (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article: No broadcast date has been announced. Hissrich at one time speculated on a 2020 release, but later retracted that statement. At best this article is WP:CRYSTAL. It may never air. When the series creator can't even speculate on a release date you know there are problems. I concur with AlexTheWhovian's assessment. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. The topic meets WP:GNG because of substantial coverage in reliable sources as shown through the references in the article. In view of the GNG, whether or not production has begun is irrelevant (although it clearly has, since people are being cast.) WP:TV is a project and not a community-adopted guideline. Sandstein 09:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why can the content not be listed in the section listed as above in the parent article? "Production beginning" means the commencement of principal photography, as per the related guideline also linked above, and you've been unable to cover either that nor the speculation in the article on the air date violating WP:CRYSTAL. What's the point in having WP:TV if it's not used to maintain some level of standard in television articles? Shall we ignore them for whatever article we personally choose? -- Alex^TW 09:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "point in having WP:TV" as far as I'm concerned. It's just a WikiProject made up by some people. It does not represent wider community consensus. Only properly adopted guidelines and policies do that, and WP:GNG is one of them. It says we can make articles on topics that have received substantial coverage in reliable sources, as is the case here, which you do not contest. Sandstein 11:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is policy, and that applies here. WP:NFF, which is referenced by WP:CRYSTAL, applies to TV as well as films and it says Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. That also applies here. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sandstein, your personal opinion on the WikiProject has been noted; however, WikiProjects exist in the dozens on almost every major topic, so that editors can gather to discuss articles in the same category, and partake in discussions about them and gain consensus' on standard practices. They exist no matter if you like them or not - if you want to get rid of them, take it elsewhere, else respect them and the editors in them. And I do dispute it - a few sources on a few topics does not necessarily satisfy GNG, it has certainly not received "substantial coverage", and it doesn't satisfy it enough to have a separate article, especially when all of the content can be included in the parent article on the book series. You still cannot answer the questions on the principal photography, for which the Film WikiProject actually uses WP:NFF (yes, an actual guideline, as you like to point out, and as already pointed out by myself and Aussie above), or speculative content in the article. -- Alex^TW

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Draft:The Witcher (TV series) and redirect to The Witcher#Film and television: this fails WP:NTV, or if you want something with wider scope, it also fails WP:GNG because the sources are all routine. There are also WP:CRYSTAL concerns until it reaches a stage where we can be at least pretty sure the show will make it to air. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 13:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets notability guidelines, such as GNG. WP:NFF does not apply, neither should it, as films and television series have very different production processes. Somethingwickedly (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already agreement between multiple editors that it fails GNG, and that NFF does apply in its principal photography clause. -- Alex^TW 14:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what... I disagree with them; you're not the thought police and you can't control other people's opinions. That said, I am just one individual, so yes I am in a minority with my opinion at the moment. I have simply stated my view. Somethingwickedly (talk)

Comment By the way, nobody's suggesting we actually delete and nerf the entire article. Just that the content be merged into the book series article and the existing draft, and that the existing location still exist as a redirect. -- Alex^TW 14:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or draftify as appropriate, and create again once filming of the series has begun. This is pretty standard for all TV series, even those on streaming services. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already deleted once. Project should be mentioned on main The Witcher page and draft should be brought into mainspace once principal photography begins. 77.100.241.132 (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it I think section in main art. and draft will do and consider instant making of articles after some early news a mistake. Project could still rot in development hell, no matter amount of gossip about it. Mithoron (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Way too early to have an article, leave it in draft status for the time being until more information comes out. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:39, 18 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) 13:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Netflix "intends to" doesn't mean anything. Per WP:NFF, principal photography has not begun yet and therefore the TV series is not notable. I understand that WP:NFF applies to films but if anyone can pull up a more relevant policy for TV I will change my opinion based on that. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note that WP:NFF is for films, WP:NTV is for TV, which doesn't mention filming (someone need to add that first instead of claiming consensus). WP:NTV however needs updating as Netflix operates differently from other TV channels. Hzh (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Draft:The Witcher (TV series) and redirect to The Witcher#Film and television (as proposed above) or Keep, primarily for practical reasons: 1) so that we do not have to keep deleting new articles on the same topic, and merging their updated content into The Witcher#Film and television, and 2) so that we do not have to discuss it again in a few months. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:30, 30 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 18:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael L. Baird[edit]

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

Non-notable person, whose claim to fame seems to have been an expert witness in some celebrity trials. That's not good enough for a BLP, and a search for sources doesn't reveal much that's obviously connected to this Michael L. Baird. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete per the speedy nomination. Thanks for nominating in the same edit that you declined the speedy, Richie333. This should not be in mainspace Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like he has significant reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. FitIndia talk to me 07:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to also fail WP:ONEEVENT, since he's only notable for the Dannielynn Stern case and not for academia (or, technically, being a "media consultant" for NBC w/ OJ). Perhaps redirect to Dannielynn Stern if somebody ever wanted to look him up on here, but I don't think that's warranted. --John M Wolfson (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability failing on all counts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Source added, mostly mentioned in regards to the Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case, but fails BASIC/GNG. Sam Sailor 17:59, 30 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 18:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hoffman[edit]

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

Not the easiest to search for, but am not finding anything online that would seem to count towards WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill photographer. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing here to support a claim of notability and no reliable and verifiable sources found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search yields very little.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:16, 27 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 18:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Target (2018 film)[edit]

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

Copying my PROD concern:—

Unremarkable 2018 short film; the article is a stub and cites only one source, that too on Rediff.com's seemingly user-moderated site.

Doesn't seem to qualify either WP:GNG or WP:NFILMS.

P.S. — A draft of the same name exists at Draft:Target (2018 film). Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient coverage in sources apart from IMDB and Linkedin. —Mythdon 03:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources provided only indicate that the film exists, not that it is notable. As stated in the nomination, the referenced websites could be considered unreliable if they are user-moderated.– numbermaniac 14:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short films even by notable directors can be difficult to source, and by non-notable directors they are often impossible to source to NFILM and/or GNG. This case is no exception. Sam Sailor 17:20, 30 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. NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklite District[edit]

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

The article does not cite any sources, and it is written like an advert. Seeing how a lot of the content is about the supposed success of this group, references should be a requirement. I am proposing a deletion on the grounds of WP:V and WP:NOTPROMOTION. The multiple issues tags are dated December 2013 and nobody seems to be interested in fixing it, even through it has been actively edited. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: needs severe pruning and removal of promotional language if kept, but the claims of two charting songs on the Billboard Mainstream Rock Chart is true [9]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NMUSIC criterion two with charting singles on a notable national music chart, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that the band was not notable. However, the article is so poor in terms of verifiability and inclusiveness that it would be easier to write a new article than to reword every promotional claim and seek out references to save it. The article has been actively edited by a lot of different editors, none of which are interested in adding references to it. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT may be applicable here – no opinion on keep or delete, but if kept, then restart and if deleted, restart with new sources. quick search turned up many results, so this might pass WP:GNG. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored for the purpose of merging to History of schizophrenia or elsewhere if there is consensus among that article's editors to do that. Sandstein 18:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autism (symptom)[edit]

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

Roughly translated from Russian, lacks WP:MEDRS and advances an evidently idiosyncratic (or at least archaic) usage. I turned it into a redirect but that was reverted because much of the material is not in the autism article. Yes, there's a reason for that... Guy (Help!) 09:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete though I had placed it here [10]upon looking at Guy's rationale, it might be best to start over(and therefore delete)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - but with relevant improvement tags. The redirect was reverted not only because the content was not on target page but the page is a different concept - autism as a symptom of schizophrenia - and this gets over five million hits on google so clearly not an idiosyncratic or archaic concept.--Iztwoz (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "autism as a symptom of schizophrenia" gets seven google hits, just 4,999,993 short of what you claim. It clearly is both an idiosyncratic and archaic concept. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - See "Schizophrenic+autism". There are plenty of research works on this topic. Understanding Autism in Schizophrenia, The Scientific World Journal, 2012, Schizophrenic Autism, The Oxford Handbook of Phenomenological Psychopathology, Schizophrenic autism: clinical phenomenology and pathogenetic implications, World Psychiatry, 2002 and so on. – Лорд Алекс (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now do a search for "Schizophrenic autism", publication type = review on PubMed and note that you only get one result.
    - Better yet, search Trip Medical Database for "schizophrenia autism". Exactly zero secondary sources. The same for "autism in schizophrenia". And guess how many secondary sources we get for "autism as a symptom of schizophrenia"? That's right. We don't build articles on primary research, and there's nothing here that can be built on, nor that wouldn't be better placed in History of schizophrenia. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as "Autism as symptom of schizophrenia" which is what this article is about. Vorbee (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If anything, the nominator's statement "lacks WP:MEDRS" understates the severity of the problem. Medicine is a subject where garbled statements of archaic ideas can be actively harmful. There's a way to write encyclopedically about how the understanding of schizophrenia developed historically, but this is not it. WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per XOR'easter, this article's content could be harmful. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable concept from the earlier days of psychiatry. The demand for WP:MEDRS is completely out of place as the topic is in the history of medicine – we wouldn't, say, delete Bloodletting because there aren't enough double-blind placebo-controlled studies of its efficacy. – Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The two cases are not analogous. The article on bloodletting makes its status and historical context clear. Autism (symptom) is a mess. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I was only commenting on notability; if there are problems with the quality of an article on a notable topic, then these should be addressed by means other than deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - We already have (at least) two articles that address the topic: Schizophrenia and History of schizophrenia. The latter, in particular, can be improved and expanded. This needs to be discarded. XOR'easter (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete This page is a horribly confused mishmash of badly sourced sourced and should be removed from mainspace. There is a brief mention of this in the Schizophrenia#History and there should be more in History of schizophrenia. Not this. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the content refers to an archaic usage of the term "autism" as a symptom of schizophrenia, ascribed to Eugen Bleuler. That belongs in the History of schizophrenia article, not in a stand-alone article where readers will arrive who are looking for "autism symptoms" only to be confused by what they find here. For me, it's fifth in the list when searching Wikipedia for "autism symptoms" and it ought to be ninety-fifth for all its relevance to the search term. --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete just having this article confuses the issues around this term and introduces notions that do not fit with our current understanding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and merge to History of schizophrenia As this is what the article is about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 27 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. Boson (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiel Ortega[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. I've failed to locate any significant coverage in reliable sources for this person and their roles in the listed films are insufficient to satisfy WP:NACTOR. There is also a lack of sources required for BLP verification. Flooded with them hundreds 08:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically, he's an extra. Deb (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Both original editors are SPA and there's an indication of undeclared interests or cooperation. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP, shouldn't have even made it to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb and Filcaspro count as sources, so the article is not unsourced, see WP:BLPPROD. But subject neither meets WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor 08:05, 30 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 18:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeewayHertz[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY with no significant coverage that would indicate notability. A Google News search yields only 30 hits and most of them are either press release or blog posts. I'm also nominating the following article created by the same (COI) editor on the founder of this company who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - Per nominator.Nothing close to any significant coverage (and the entire coverage in RS is itself on a single trivial event) can be located.And, I dislike tea.∯WBG^converse 19:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some article clean-up previously but my WP:BEFORE at that time agreed that this was likely notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying that my BEFORE indicated likely not-notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
added more references and awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and I have removed those sources you added because they're not reliable and nowhere mention "LeewayHertz" or "Akash Takyar". Please see WP:RS for more. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akash has been awarded as best enterpeneaur of the year award in 2007 by Orrisa Government. Is this appropriate for notability? Inventing tea making robot is itself a notable. It has given new revolution to artificial intelligence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs)

Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award is not a notable award. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what about his invention of tea making robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykanah (talk • contribs) 06:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references that show cases its notability and proves leewayhertz as one of the most notable blockchain developers in world.--Mykanah (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed them again. All these user-generated blog type websites do not setisfy what WP:RS required nor they establish notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - As per Winged Blades of Godric. FitIndia talk to me 07:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I draftify the article so that I can get the strong references to prove his notability I need five to six days. His invention is going viral in India. It has created waves in the field of artificial intelligence. --Mykanah (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This trick not going to work this time. Also, as previously advised you still need to disclose COI in your user page as well as in the article talk page per WP:DISCLOSE. Please see your talk page for more. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have topic banned Mykanah under WP:GS/Crypto. MER-C 08:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Non-notable company and non-notable company founder. Sam Sailor 08:47, 30 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. Michig (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zalafa (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS. Both Zalafa and Khirbat Zalafa have hatnotes pointing to each other, but neither hatnote mentions Zalafa (disambiguation). Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:2DABS. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, aviods the need for the extra mouse click. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zalafa is clearly the primary topic, and the disambiguation page is unnecessary, and not used, except for an existing redirect at Zalafa, Khirbat, which should be directed at Khirbat Zalafa regardless. --Bejnar (talk) 02:54, 27 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. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Down[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet standards for notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.26.121 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note. I created this page for the IP who was having difficulty creating a third nomination; his original attempt to nominate can be seen here. I do not express any opinion on the article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 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) 23:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion nomination has no Wikipedia editor standing behind it. It is a waste of our time to be considering it. User:C.Fred should not have opened it for an I.P. editor who will not be accountable; C. Fred should have encouraged them to create an account or use their existing one and take responsibility. --Doncram (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think C.Fred is at fault here. It's rather our own rule that allows everyone to start deletion discussion even without an account. I always find it weird. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:C.Fred, did you attempt to examine the merit of having a 3rd AFD on this topic? For example to try to rule out whether this is some grudge campaign? There was a completed AFD about this previously. Usually repeated AFDs are time-wasters. Why do you think it is now worth more investment of AFD participants? I suggest/request that you withdraw this nomination, if you will not yourself personally take responsibility, review the previous AFDs, perform wp:BEFORE, and invest time in making argument for deletion which explains what is different now. --Doncram (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if I hadn't voted (delete) in the last AfD I'd have closed this. No rationale for deletion provided. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work as currently it smacks of promotion but not fit for deletion. He clearly passes ANYBIO leading several large corporate orgs [11] –Ammarpad (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scope_creep (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been ton of work completed on this article, and it should have never reached Afd. Several people including myself have gone through, and completed a fairly comprehensive copyedit and its now fit for purpose. It is a snow keep. scope_creep (talk) 07:53, 24 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 18:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Win Development[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable firm. It's written essentially the same as one would write a catalog page for the firm. It's been here since 2010! DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only non-corporate non-shopping sources I could find have to deal with their stock price, which would require a lot of original research to flesh out even a stub with. --John M Wolfson (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, created by WP:SPA Super188 (after multiple AfC rejections of an instance with a slightly different name) and subsequently edited by another, Inwininsight. The article does no more than describe the company's standards compliance and product lines. Searches are not finding better than more routine coverage, rather than the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written like a promotional puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 20:28, 25 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 supercentenarians by continent. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of African supercentenarians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails WP:LISTN as there is no WP:SIGCOV that supercentenarians from Africa are notable as a group. The article also runs afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST since it is being used to house a WP:SYNTH of the GRG's data tables in a format they apparently don't want to take the time to create or manage themselves. It should be noted that there is only one source in this article under WP:GNG, since all six citations are to the same group. It should also be noted the article was recreated by banned editor User:Waenceslaus. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been AFD'd thrice before and has been kept all three times. The main reasons cited for the retention in the last discussion are reasons (such as the fact all the other continents have equivalent lists) that are still valid. -- John M Wolfson (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Your assertions are entirely untrue. The article was deleted twice before and neither North America nor Asia have continent level articles either. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I only checked the third nomination. However, with the third nomination some of the main arguments for retention was that the GRG had become a reliable source and that all the other continents have similar lists. (Which they technically do, although I agree that North American and Asian articles leave much to be desired, the latter being a redirect to a Japan's list.) Given that these facts still hold, and that at least a couple of other continents and other such geographic areas as countries have similar lists that are uncontroversial, my Keep vote stands. -- John M Wolfson (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, it seems that some of those arguments were advanced by the discredited User:Waenceslaus. Having said that, from what I understand "List of supercentenarians from Geographic Area X" articles do tend to be notable, and Africa is an obvious choice for a geographic area. It also doesn't have any more-obvious sub-areas (like Asia w/ Japan or North America w/ the US) to compile such a list. I also don't think it's a SYNTH violation, given WP:These are not original research#Compiling facts and information, although I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and can be mistaken. Sorry for double posting, but I just wanted to state my position a bit more clearly. --John M Wolfson (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for revising your argument after realizing your mistake. You have put a lot more thought into your posts when proven incorrect at first then most people do. The actual List of North American supercentenarians page was eliminated [1] via a redirect to the page you listed above, as was the Asian list to the Japanese list. So those continent pages don't exist anymore as standalone articles like this one presently does. The main issue with this article is WP:LISTN for their isn't WP:SIGCOV in third party sources demonstrating that African supercentenarians as a group are a notable topic. Sources such as the Washington Post or the BBC don't ever cover this topic, which please note is separate from individuals getting some coverage. Articles like this were created by people from the GRG and longevity fans (User:Waenceslaus was someone affiliated with the GRG - if you look at the second nomination, the now Wikipedia banned GRG head Robert Young edited under Ryoung122). This and a great many other longevity articles were created by people either as a hobby or with an off-wiki agenda like free hosting and distribution of the GRG's data. This has famously (at least in this project) been a source of numerus battles over the years as such articles are attempted to be rooted out and offending editors get banned. The topic of African SC's as a group is simply not notable with reliable sources and even if some other continents rightly or wrongly have articles, each article by policy must stand or fall on its own merits. This one falls. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. After some more thought I've decided to change my vote to Redirect per Frayæ. --John M Wolfson (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discriminating against the entire continent of Africa would be systemic bias contrary to WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither North America nor Asia have continent articles like this anymore so how is there bias against Africa in getting rid of this article? Your keepist argument is blatantly false and is of no substance in this AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The North American equivalent is Lists of North American supercentenarians. I'm not sure what's happened to the Asian equivalent but we clearly need something similar there too. The problem is clearly that people keep trying to delete this stuff and so it's then hard to get a stable and sensible structure. See WP:INSPECTOR. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the actual North American article was redirected to that disambiguation page via [1] and the Asian page was redirected here [2] because almost every person on it was Japanese, so it was pointlessly redundant. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two incomplete lists (as stated in the article) supported by only one source. Can't be kept in its current status, and either way it screams original research. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 08:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list is clearly part of a set covering the globe. As there is no duplication of coverage this selective deletion attempt does appear to be systemic bias as Africa would become the only region not listed. The corresponding lists in other regions are much the same. For reference the other corresponding list sourced in the same way are; Europe, Oceania, South America, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States. Perhaps a group nomination should be considered, otherwise it is notable as part of an overall set of notable lists. I have decided on another option. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to avoid deletion. By policy, each and every article on Wikipedia must stand or fall on its own merits. Whether other pages should or should not exist has no bearing on this discussion. The corresponding North America and Asia list articles were both redirected so there is clearly not any discrimination going on either. Also, many of the entries on these two lists are found on other lists so there is duplication. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will create a new list. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a policy based argument as to why this particular article should be kept? Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it meets WP:NOTESAL as a valid list per WP:LISTPURP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. There are no reliable third party sources (not even the GRG) that demonstrate through WP:SIGCOV that African supercentenarians as a group are a notable topic. It utterly fails WP:NOTESAL. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is reasonable. I have stuck my vote after writing a new list. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have editorially merged all remaining continental lists of supercentenarians into List of supercentenarians by continent. That includes this article. I recommend a redirect to preserve attribution. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Frayae. » Shadowowl | talk 13:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN as no sources discuss or demonstrate "<continent> supercentenarians" is a notable topic. All six references go to GRG tables which while doing nothing to demonstrate notability as they are just a big bunch of names in a table, also don't have any continental lists on their website. Will also point out most of the arguments from the previous AFD centered on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL and there was also clearly some canvassing from the 110 club forum. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CommanderLinx. The current sources only confirm that the topic exists, not that it is any way notable or encyclopedic (at least by Wikipedia's standards). WP:N requires that the topic itself be covered in multiple, non-trivial, reliable, third-party sources in order to demonstrate its notability, which is not the case here. If there were news articles, scientific studies, etc. on the topic of African supercentenarians, then I might !vote keep, but as it stands, I do not see any. Canadian Paul 21:44, 25 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of Life Tour[edit]

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

The article currently fails WP:NTOUR, as it just consists of routine coverage and a list of tour dates. I believe that this is WP:TOOSOON, and an article would be more appropriate once the tour starts. See AfDs for Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera) and NickiHndrxx Tour as they are similar cases. Aoba47 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft for development of sources indicating the nobility of the tour as its own event. If the article is not attended to over the next six months (by which time the tour will be well underway, and notable aspects may have been reported in sources) then it will be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 00:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving it to draft sounds good for now. HappyAppy10 (talk) 01:09, 23 September2018 (UTC)
Drafitfy is indeed a good WP:ATD to the WP:FUTURE event. as of now it is nothing more than schedules for the tour. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is fine here, but as the title is a valid search term there is no point in seeking outright deletion. A much better idea would have been to follow policy WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR to e.g. List of Kelly Clarkson concert tours. Sam Sailor 08:12, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rhode Island Public Transit Authority routes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR. Is just a list of bus timetables. Nothing else of importance Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to main article: NOTDIR is wholly irrelevant here - this isn't an arbitrary list, but a cohesive set. I moved the listing from the main article because it was taking up a lot of space; it can be moved back there (without the ELs if necessary) if you think that's preferable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a directory ... of bus routes and timetable, and there is nothing pertaining to notability of the routes. Ajf773 (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Based on this category, it looks like a pretty common kind of list, and especially since the system is pretty small (and singular), there's going to be some coverage in regional media. Don't have a strong opinion about merging (to the RIPTA article, presumably), but it seems like stand-alone works. Not keen on the column with external links (WP:EL), but that's not necessarily relevant to this AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep / Comment - List has a bit more information than shown directly on the website, so it may stand here. This bus route list is slightly more developed than the one found at this deletion discussion. It provides more insight, but not by much. If the decision is "keet", it should be expanded to include more relevant information. Not all bus lists have insufficient information to justify an article existence, but I am glad we are distinguishing them. BRES2773 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find WP:NOTDIR completely relevant and concur with nom. I see no encyclopedic value in a list of bus routes. MB 03:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, but it should be expanded with more information (e.g. when the route commenced, any major changes to it, significant discontinued routes, etc). NOTDIR does not mean that we need to delete every list that might be a directory if the encyclopaedic information was removed. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More expansion will probably help the article and reduce the NOTDIR issue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL.Charles (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep AfD is not cleanup and while this could use some cleanup, it could also be expanded into a notable topic. Sources such as [12] and [13] SportingFlyer talk 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources listed above which show that the topic passes WP:NLIST, no valid reason for deletion eccept unspecific generalisations, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that Atlantic306 closed this as keep. I agree that non-admins should not close controversial XfDs, but I'm sympathetic to the idea that this was not actually so controversial. Charlesdrakew then reverted the close without talking with Atlantic306 or going to DRV, and was undone (and then redone) by Atlantic306. I guess we're now waiting for an uninvolved admin? (this was all before Atlantic306 !voted of course) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NOTDIR (There's not much prose to this article, Whilst lists are acceptable, as a rule there should be prose and in this article and at present there's not much as such and as such I would consider this to be a simple directory)

Fails NOTTRAVEL (I would consider this to be a travel guide - It's giving you the bus companies names and where to board and alight from so I would consider that a guide),

Fails BASIC/GNG - (There has been no evidence of notability provided, 2 sources have been provided for 2 bus services but as a rule of thumb each service should be sourced),

The table as a whole provides no knowledge to our average reader other than were a bus goes from and too - This information is as far as I'm aware all on the separate bus company articles so as such a huge table is not needed, I'm not seeing any valid reasons for keeping this at present. –Davey2010^Talk 22:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- there isn't much prose but the table is not that huge with 93 entries, also it could be useful for readers that they dont have to go to each seperate article but can find it all in one easy to read table, refs should not be a problem as they are popular bus routes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popular bus routes? Only the R-Line has an article (as it is a rapid service), the rest are just run-of-the-mill bus routes that would unlikely pass WP:GNG as do the majority of bus route articles. There is nothing of notable value other than a directory of bus routes which was Wikipedia is not. The timetable information has now been removed. Ajf773 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- the article had helpful specific links to the correct timetables for each route but the nominator has just removed them for no valid reason as WP:NOTTIMETABLE refers to the inclusion of the timetable in the article not links to the timetable, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're not a travel guide. We should not have any sort of links pointing directly to bus timetables for this reason. Ajf773 (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773's correct there's only one article so I disagree this article isn't and cannot be useful to anyone, There are run-of-the-mill services and the lack-of-notability proves that, External links shouldn't be in articles and timetables alone cannot be used as sources anyway, I'll also add having external links like that would essentially mean the article's a repository if that makes sense,

We have to remember we're an Encyclopedia and as such should cover all wide ranges of topics but in this case like I said above I fail to see what's encyclopedic and knowledge-worthy about a table with a few pictures. –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 30 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 Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Jayne Harris[edit]

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

Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. References provided are mentions-in-passing at best. Call me a Cassandra, but I predict that this will be deleted. Edwardx (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, with a condition that it can not be restored to mainspace unless reliable sources demonstrating notability are added to the article. If the page goes six months without improvement, it will be deleted as abandoned in due course. bd2412 T 01:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 01:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft I agree. Too early. scope_creep (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is, I suppose, a fair possibility, but the article reeks of UPE. Sam Sailor 07:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft for improvement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:50, 30 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.