< 25 September 27 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happstack[edit]

Happstack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is entirely WP:OR based on primary sources. Could not find any books on Amazon on this topic. A few Happstack books show up on Google Scholar but they're all by the same author. One paper describes Happstack [1] but only extremely briefly. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:45, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yesod (web framework)[edit]

Yesod (web framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely original research and is textbook WP:NOTMANUAL. WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies here. Additionally, the topic seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT as the only independent, reliable, significant, secondary source I could find on this was [2]. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't even read my nomination. I said that that book was the only source I found. Can you please calm down? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Widefox has edited this comment. It had previously criticized me for not finding the O'Reilly book. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Yes, I fixed my comment before anyone else commented as it was incorrect, which is allowed.) Did you do BEFORE?, and if you start deleting and blanking lots of Haskell articles in the same day, just when your attempt at deleting Haskell xmonad is failing, don't you think someone will notice a pattern? Widefox; talk 03:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. Did you read the nom? I said the only source I found was the book, which I found independently when I was checking for sources, since I didn't check the external links section. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 04:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I shouldn't have struck WP:SKCRIT#3 as you've confirmed you didn't read the article. Unstruck. Widefox; talk 05:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC) struck WP:SKCRIT#3 to deescalate - still a Speedy Keep is OK, or Keep. Widefox; talk 10:54, 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 delete. Tone 07:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Sellam[edit]

Marc Sellam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For information: this article has been deleted from the French-language article for this reason. EulerObama (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:47, 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. No consensus to delete, strong arguments were made in favor of keeping. This was somewhat the outcome of the previous AfDs as well. Tone 08:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a list of trivia by definition; it has inconsistent and sometimes very poor sourcing. Despite being AfD'ed previously, sourcing has not improved mostly because the broad variety of subjects and mass-appeal nature of explicit sourcing rules out many academic and high-quality sources. Article is highly unlikely to reach a workable state at any point in the future, and well-sourced entries can be moved to the appropriate article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It's had well over a decade to correct the issues (check the first AfD and prepare to experience deja vu), and yet it's never done so. If 12+ years of editing can't fix it, it can't be fixed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it more reasonable to prevent the community from coming to a decision over what to do with an article just because a few people are edit-warring over it? I think not. It would seem to me to be a most inadvisable precedent to set. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I'm only suggesting that this deletion discussion be put on hold until the protection expires. I have no objection to it reopening at that time. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that protection is due to expire in less than 24 hours [7] that would seem rather unnecessary. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It expires at 14:50, 28 September, or about 40 hours from now. That's almost 1/4 of the normal 7-day length of an AFD. This article has been around since 2003; a 40-hour wait isn't going to do much harm. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the article can be improved to avoid deletion, then deletion is not warranted even if no improvement happens (cf. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state). Regards SoWhy 09:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, yes. In practice, people will !vote based on the current state. I've stuck my !vote anyway because the article is now unprotected. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was more controversial than I thought. A simple Google Scholar search [8] reveals plenty of sources that discuss common misconceptions. Given the quantity of academic sources, I'm quite sure there's even more non-academic sources. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The google scholar result is not impressive. It's mostly articles that use a "common misconceptions" title as a catchy introduction to an article by experts in topic X, providing solid correct information on topics within X, chosen based on the authors' subjective impression about what misconceptions in that field are common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could be a reason to redefine the inclusion criteria rather than delete the article. Maybe we want to specify that the source must prove that they are common rather than just labeling the misconception as common. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 06:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms, what kind of criteria did you have in mind, FenixFeather? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@142.160.89.97: I didn't realize that the article already has pretty solid inclusion criteria. However, if Ccrrccrr doesn't like the fact that expert opinions on common misconceptions should be allowed, then that could be an amendment to the current inclusion criteria. Here's the current criteria just for reference:
  1. The topic the misconception is related to has an article of its own.
  2. The item is reliably sourced, both with respect to the factual contents of the item and the fact that it is a common misconception.
  3. The common misconception is mentioned in its topic article with sources.
  4. The common misconception is current, as opposed to ancient or obsolete.
– FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson: Uhh, what does its quality of organization have to do with whether or not it qualifies as trivia? (Note that I'm not asking whether its quality of organization is relevant to it being kept or not.) 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood WP:TRIVIA to extend to articles and not just trivia sections within articles, which are as it states unorganized lists of miscellany. --John M Wolfson (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I lean keep but I don't find this statement credible. The big tan box actually says that there's no clear consensus about the criteria! Also, the use of reliable sources to attest that it's a common misconception is weak. Often an article will use that as a way to frame an explanation by an expert on the topic who has done no research to actually determine how common the misconception is. And the editors who are vetting that content (for the reliable source) are likely vetting only that the corrected story is correct, not vetting whether the misconception is in fact common. Ccrrccrr (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this is an exceptional list article having unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion, as described in the big tan box at the top of the talk page. I would like to assume good faith here, Anachronist, but given that literally the first sentence of the tan box to which you're referring reads "A rigid consensus on inclusion criteria for this list has not been reached", it is self-evident that you are lying to us. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that there are unambiguous and rigorous criteria for inclusion. Nowhere did I address any lack of consensus. Don't lie about what others have written. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the criteria lack consensus, then there are no criteria. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JZCL: Which of the speed keep criteria (WP:SKCRIT) does it meet? And on what basis would WP:SNOW be applicable? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW per my above points. Speedy because at the time of my writing this the article was fully protected, so editors could not improve problems addressed in the article. It doesn't specifically come any of those criteria. JZCL 21:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How hasn't it already failed the snowball test? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Which of the speed keep criteria (WP:SKCRIT) does this meet? And how does WP:NOPAGE not meet WP:DELREASON? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This meets SKCRIT #1b: " fails to advance any argument for deletion". All the arguments brought forth in the nomination are fixable by editing and the reasoning was merely that this has not yet happened. NOPAGE does not fit here because the list meets WP:LISTN as pointed out multiple times. Regards SoWhy 10:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: You can argue that WP:NOPAGE oughtn't apply here, but why would WP:LISTN prevent its application? And when you say it "meets" WP:LISTN, I haven't the faintest idea as to what that means given that WP:LISTN provides no criteria per se.
Regarding WP:SKCRIT, the full text of the first criterion is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected [emphasis in original]." Are you suggesting that no one has recommended that the page be deleted or redirected? Bear in mind that the latter part of the criterion you're citing doesn't require that the rationales for such recommendations meet WP:DELREASON. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LISTN says nothing about traditional encyclopedias or general purpose sources, it says "independent reliable sources". That criteria is met. See the sources, external links and further reading in the article that discuss common misconceptions as a group.Sjö (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN also only requires that a set of topics "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are plenty of sources that list misconceptions as a group rather than individually (e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] etc. pp.). It's not our job to decide whether RS should do that, just that they do. I mentioned List of films considered the best above as an example of a list that has routinely been found encyclopedic despite clearly being subjective. OSE aside, the same reasoning applies: If source 1 says "A, B, C and D are common misconceptions" and source 2 says "E, F, G, H and A" are common misconceptions, we can include A to H in a list and point to the sources that list them together without having to have a source that lists all of them together. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At what point to those !voting to keep this article plan to actually help by replacing bad sources with good, trimming bad entries and adding good ones? Because I don't see that happening at the article. Instead, I see occasional editors showing up to "fix" it and only making things worse, or else editors just completely ignoring it. So if editors here don't want to get in the mud of fixing this crap, then please don't !vote "keep" just on principles. Principles are good things to have, but they don't actually do any work on their own. If we can delete and rebuild this article, we might have a chance to make it worthwhile, but if we just keep pretending that just because it could be fixed that it will be fixed, we're just damaging this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? How is there anything that can be achieved by deleting and recreating that cannot be achieved by editing without prior deletion? Plus, if you start citing time as a reason for deletion, when does it stop? After 10 years with no improvement? 5 years? 1 year? Wikipedia is a work in progress and will always be. And this includes having lists that might never be "perfect". That does not mean they should not exist. Regards SoWhy 14:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are basically saying it's too much of a hassle to have this page even if it is encyclopedic? No, I'm saying that no-one is taking on the hassle to make this non-encyclopedic article actually encyclopedic. I'm pointing out that in 12 years, we've yet to deal with the hassle of this article. Also, I never suggested anything needed to be "perfect", nor can any reasonable person interpret what I said as meaning that, so please stop mischaracterizing what I said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point: It's an extremely common misconception that an argument from authority is always a fallacy (it's not; hence why it's not called "fallacy of authority"). Good luck finding a source that say this, though. That's the problem with common misconceptions: they're so common nobody calls them out. Finding a source for one is like trying to find a source for the claim that water is wet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that most of those who !votes Delete gives raitonales like Utter trash and a bunch of opinions etc. That is POV and not guideline based. per WP:GNG. You sure don't see that in this AfD. The Delete !votes for the most part give WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT based arguments, but also give practical arguments, like my nom. You know what I do see here? WP:LASTTIME, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:MUSTBESOURCES, WP:INTERESTING, WP:ADDSVALUE. Only I see them in the keep !votes. Funny how they're all on the same page, isn't it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
--David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
@David Tornheim: In what world is that a list? It's a navbox, existing solely for the purpose of navigation. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 05:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole back and forth is 100% bullshit, and I'm not going to bother correcting any single part of it. Bryn: get the fuck over it. I reported you at ANI because of your behavior, and then I went this route because it fixes the article without having to deal with the bullshit that popped up at ANI. I promise you that if I actually went out and notified everyone who's already accused you of bad behavior at that article (which is not canvassing, BTW) and refocused on the ANI, you would find that it quickly turns against you. Hell, there's already at least two other comments on your behavior there. Seriously, grow the fuck up and stop going around whining about everything, or it's going to blow up in your face. I'm literally making an effort to work with you here, and your reaction is to throw a hissy fit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will skip responding to MPants since its really getting to be WP:DNFTT. Thanks Pengo, I noticed off the bat that it was a summary List article (and edited it as so) and you can't blame a list just because it indexes other Wikipedia articles that have a certain attribute (such as have a referenced statement about a "common misconception"), that's the bailiwick of Lists. The problem is human nature and the tendency of some Wikipedia editors to think this is the place to do OR and come up with your own facts. It kinda makes me think we should skew one point towards the "delete side" to compensate for that... but there is probably not a guideline on that :/ . Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what a troll is? I know you don't know what "name-calling" means, already. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a common misconception that this page won't end up being one of the most interesting RM discussions in recent history. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also somewhat disingenuous to complain about poor quality and simultaneously prevent users from improving it. I'm sure you think this was about me, but you've actually stolen the words right out of my mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: See the article talk page; I've already started a discussion about the criteria, which is one of the biggest problems. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: I looked at Talk:List_of_common_misconceptions#Criteria, which is a discussion of changing inclusion criteria. I have not looked into what are the current or proposed changes to the criteria--that is another matter, and there will be room for disagreement because of the uniqueness of how this article treats the subject. What I am asking you instead is for specific examples of sections (or sentences) that you see that are in the article that you think are a problem and/or how the existence of this article has somehow made the problem with those sections worse than it would be if those same sections were in a standalone article on the subject (or a section of a bigger article). I haven't seen evidence of multiple problems like that that are exacerbated by the existence of this article yet. But I might change my vote if I did. You seem to assert that there are multiple examples. I will trust you that Argument of Authority is no better here than at the article page, but I need to see more examples. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time right now, or in the immediate future to go through and evaluate all the sources again. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable, I've also made some points in the nom as well as in other comments here about practical problems that don't have to do with sources, but which reflect on the fundamental nature of this article. If you look at the discussion I pointed you to, you should be able to see how the outcome of that discussion will affect anyone examining the sourcing in this article, so going through it now with an eye to the sources would be somewhat pointless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll try to spend some time with your entry on criteria. I've done it once before and found the sources on average to be quite weak though the content itself seems to be easily sourceable... That to me is a strong reason to me to keep. I would only vote to delete if I felt it contained misinformation or non-notable and unsource-able material.
That said, I do understand that the criteria for inclusion might be more editorial judgment on our part than on the basis of secondary sources. I don't actually have a big problem with that any more than the judgments about our decision on what to cover in "Today in the news", list of Philosophers, important dates, etc. On the other hand, for our Landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases article, I do think we have a problem with how those are chosen and have stated so. I do think those should be chosen by reliable sources and not editors. I'm guessing you are making that argument here.
I could see an argument for the a requirement that there is some evidence (in at least one reliable source) that the asserted misconception is "commonly held". Proving that a particular belief is wrong and what is correct might be easy, but perhaps is not enough. But proving it is a "common" misconception is a bit tricky, because then we have to ask what is meant "common"? If 10% of people believe it, is that common? What if only 1% of people believe it, but make serious mistakes because their strongly held mistaken belief? If the RS says "some people mistakenly believe X", would it qualify? If that's what this is about, I might be in agreement about adjusting the requirements to show at least some evidence that the RS says that some people are confused, but not about deleting the article--unless I saw flagrant violation of reasonable rules. Still, I'm staying with my keep vote until I see there is a clear problem. Will look at your criteria section another time. Thanks for discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MPants at work: After writing the above, I looked at your criteria discussion as promised, which did indeed have to do with what is meant by "common". Seems the main thing you wanted to require is that an "expert" must assert the misconception. Although I am not presently in agreement, I can see an argument for that. In the meantime, without strong evidence of any particular problems in the article, I'm staying with keep. If you or anyone else wants to hat this discussion, it's fine by me. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: I'm not trying to convince you to change your !vote. Whether the article is deleted or improved doesn't matter to me. What happened was that I started an ANI thread about an editor using some of the poorest logic I've seen come from any experienced editor to justify edit warring to keep any new entry from being added to that article. When I did so, the response from the usuals at ANI was to exclaim about how low-quality the article was, and several of them opined it should be deleted. With that discussion absolutely derailing almost any discussion of the editing behavior, I decided to refocus on fixing the article, however necessary. So I filed this, to see how the dice fell, since I was unable to edit the article myself at the time. I later (the next day) started a discussion about the inclusion criteria. I'm wide open to participation there, if you would care to do so. So far, the quality of that discussion has not been much better, with one editor opining that defining a simple, binary criteria by which we judge something to be "common" or not would somehow increase arguments about whether an entry was a "common" misconception or not, and the editor I initially filed the ANI against opining that changing the existing criteria would somehow permit WP:OR at the article, an assertion so insanely illogical that I can only assume it's due to a desperate attempt to rebut anything I say. So if you would like to continue this discussion, I would be happy to do so there. But since, as I said, I don't have any particular desire to push this to a "delete" close, I don't think this is the proper venue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MjolnirPants: Illogic on Wikipedia?!? [link redacted "Holy haberdashery, Batman!"] Say it isn't so! --David Tornheim (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the article having been nommed for deletion four times over 12 years (and at least once before that) with the same exact problems being cited each and every time, any editor claiming "shame on the OP" really looks like someone who should get off their ass and help fix the damned thing instead of engaging in ignorant recrimination here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's an ad homenium criticism of an editor's !vote, and a violation of the policy WP:NOTMANDATORY. WP:TIND. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an ad hominem, I didn't say anything about their !vote, and I haven't violated any fucking policy. Jesus Christ, do you know what anything you said even means? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "nobody can say X unless they do Y", you're saying an opinion's validity is dependent on who is saying it. You're saying only editors who have worked to improve the list are allowed to criticize the WP:POINTy nature of this AfD. The AfD is either WP:POINTy, or it isn't, and anyone can argue that it is or isn't without every having worked on improving List of common misconceptions. When you start saying, "Editors who want to hold this or that opinion (keep the list, this AfD is POINTy, etc) are obligated to go edit the list", you're saying they have to go do volunteer work. Wikipedia is always voluntary. Nobody is obligated to do anything.

If this AfD is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, anyone can argue that it is regardless of what articles they have or haven't ever worked on. Ad homenium arguments are fallacious. Also, stop bludgeoning. There's plenty of other editors who can represent the significant point of view here. You're not the only one who wants to see this list deleted, so you're not the only one who has to refute every !vote. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except I didn't say any of that shit you just claimed I did. And even if I did say that, that's still not what an ad hominem is. We have an article about the subject, you should probably read it before you go wash the taste of foot out of your mouth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck to you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Globalisation is something that the criteria will need to address. At the moment it is far too focused on the English speaking west. I don't see why it can't be done though. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What might such criteria look like? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of something along the lines of "Entries should not be restricted to small geographic areas. Generally, only misconceptions referenced as being common across multiple countries are eligible for inclusion. Misconceptions which are only common in a single country, with any believers elsewhere consisting mainly of its expatriates, are generally not eligible. Misconceptions common in only one country may be eligible for large countries with high populations but such exceptions must be referenced as very common throughout that country. Editors of the English Wikipedia should take care not to give undue weight to the misconceptions common in English speaking countries. Examples: Misconceptions common across the English, French or Spanish speaking world are equally eligible. Misconceptions common across West Africa, South Asia, North America or Eastern Europe are equally eligible. Misconceptions specific to large individual countries such as China, Russia or the USA are eligible only if very common throughout the whole country but generally are not. Misconceptions specific to smaller countries or to specific regions of large countries are not eligible. (This means that misconceptions common in only a few states of the USA are not eligible.) This may mean that many interesting and/or amusing candidate entries are excluded. This is intentional. It is necessary to avoid trivial and excessive entries." I'm sure that that is far from perfect. It might be that other people have better ideas for a starting point. I just wanted to show that it can be done. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate on how WP:NOPAGE applies here, in your opinion? TompaDompa (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE's point is that a standalone page may not be the best way to present something. In this (unusual) case, "common misconceptions" are not best presented by gathering all this minutiae together into a worthless slagheap, but presenting the correct information wherever it naturally belongs throughout other articles. Honestly, you can't dip in anywhere in this page without finding strained triviality. Here's one:
Benjamin Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States instead of the bald eagle. While he did serve on a commission that tried to design a seal after the Declaration of Independence, his proposal was an image of Moses. His objections to the eagle as a national symbol and preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter in response to the Society of the Cincinnati's use of the former; he never expressed that sentiment publicly.
Shocking! "Franklin did not propose that the wild turkey be used as the symbol for the United States". No, no. His "preference for the turkey were stated in a 1784 letter to his daughter...; he never expressed that sentiment publicly." So you see, private versus public. That's a really important distinction. You know what this page is? Ripley's Believe It or Not!. It's for twelve-year-olds who think interrupting people to tell them that Big Ben is a bell, not a clock, makes them look like a smart grown up. (I'm taking bets on how long before someone adds that to the page.) EEng 11:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Big Ben may have been there in the past although I don't feel like trawling the history to check. I'm not against it being included but I certainly don't feel the need to add it myself. It is a misconception and it is common, even in the UK. The turkey/eagle thing is not one I had heard of anywhere else. Probably it is of little interest outside of the USA. If it is a truly common misconception in the USA then maybe it is worth including. I think the annoying 12 year old issue only comes into play when coverage of these less than earth-shattering misconceptions is overdone. What we want in each case is just one sentence to set them up and one sentence and a link to knock them down.
Sure, the article can be read by kids in a "believe it or not" way. So long as that is not its only purpose then that is OK. If it encourages kids to read an encyclopaedia then surely that is no bad thing. It wouldn't be the only article that can be read out of context for pure entertainment. My personal favourite is List of fictional works in Gargantua and Pantagruel, which is what actually persuaded me to read Rabelais. Anybody who says anything against that will have two very angry, and very drunk, giants to contend with. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING may not be a reason to keep, but it's certainly not a reason to delete either. If that were the only argument to keep, sure, but it's not. And for what it's worth, I heard the turkey myth presented as fact when I was in elementary school. And it often makes its rounds in Facebook memes around Thanksgiving. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point: it's not a myth. He apparently really did write his daughter that he thought the turkey might be a good idea. Whether he formally "proposed" it, or "expressed that sentiment publicly" has little to do with it -- thinkers of the time primarily expressed themselves in letters. It's a great example of the kind of half-baked semi-educated stuff this page is full of. EEng 13:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You are convincing me that that particular entry is not up to standard and I have no problem with other similarly poor entries being removed. I'm not seeing how this invalidates the whole article though, unless you feel that there would be nothing left? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it seems we don't have an essay called WP:CRAPMAGNET. EEng 13:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is the need to ((globalize)) a page a reason for deletion? It's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. I'm excited at the prospect of editors from non-Western, non-English speaking cultures adding their common misconceptions. That some editors lack the imagination to see how future editors will work this out is not evidence that it can't be done. Fear of how long it might take, or how many editors might have to work to achieve it is not evidence it can't be done. If it were achieved, would the list grow too long? Probably. So what? That's what splitting is for. And it is generally agreed that the current version is too wordy and with tighter writing the whole thing could be much shorter and contain more entries. Again, surmountable.

Most of this amounts to FUD, WP:BEANS and hand wringing about hypothetical future problems which we can solve when they arise.

We keep circling back to one simple thing: this list is a large endeavor, broad in scope, dependent on many, many other Wikipedia articles, requiring many diverse and skilled editors, and it will take years if not decades to reach perfection, if ever. So what? Arbitrary deadlines, impatience, and lack of imagination. Wikipedia itself was widely panned and scorned by doubters who similarly lacked the imagination to see how such a thing could ever work. Turns out, it's possible, in time, and Wikipedia as a whole's lack of perfection is not a fatal flaw. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! Well said. I must admit, to my own happiness at finding such a page, that I did not know this page existed until a couple of days ago, 28 September. Until then I was unaware, wandering the halls of Wikipedia without going up this avenue. I haven't read much of the page, and have just done a couple of edits, but am enjoying the page itself and this discussion. Big Ben isn't the clock? Who would have known. I'll keep the article in mind, and do some polishing editing from time to time, and want to add in somewhere about catnip, if it's not in there already (that the effects of catnip do not work on one out of three cats, but two substitutes exist). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think EEng's reply does a good job of addressing the applicability of WP:NOPAGE. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis, that is absolutely not the case. Brynn has removed a large number of entries, with very little pushback. He didn't experience any real conflict until he started lying about what sources said and making ridiculous claims (including the startlingly illogical claim that something isn't a "common misconception" unless everyone, everywhere believes it) in order to prevent other editors from adding well-sourced content to the article. Furthermore, his claim about the "current move" is completely hysterical, as you can see by actually following that link. I suggest you not bother to engage Bryn, as they have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to engage with anything resembling reason at the page. It's his way or the highway. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Here's the diff for the last year. The following entries were in the list a year ago, but no longer:
  1. A standard cup of brewed coffee has more caffeine than a single shot of espresso.
  2. Placing metal inside a microwave oven does not damage the oven's electronics.
  3. "Golf" did not originate as an acronym of "Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden".
  4. Meteorites are not necessarily hot when they reach the Earth's surface.
  5. The Sun's color is white
  6. Guglielmo Marconi did not invent the radio, but only modernized it for public broadcasting and communication.
The following were entries that were added some time in the last 12 months, but are now gone:
  1. Whether, or how frequently, a woman wears a bra is not a factor in the likelihood of developing ptosis, or sagging breasts
  2. While the Australian referendum, 1967 was a crucial step blah blah blah blah
  3. The video game crash of 1983 was not solely caused because of bad games.
  4. The term "Polish death camp" is contradictory to historical facts and grossly unfair to Poland as a victim of Germany.
  5. The popular ideals of dinosaurs have many misconceptions, reinforced by films, books, comics, television shows, and even theme parks.
  6. It is unknown whether pi is a normal number
  7. By modern convention, one is not a prime number
  8. The complex numbers, which contain imaginary numbers, are defined equally as rigorously as real numbers using mathematical axioms
  9. Fractals are not necessarily self-similar
  10. It is often more convenient to describe a rotating system by using a rotating frame--the calculations are simpler, and descriptions more intuitive
  11. Though the exact cause of homosexuality is unknown, it is believed to be biological as it does not only manifest in humans. See homosexuality in animals.
  12. Contemporary studies(e.g. kinsey report) on human sexuality have shown that sexual interest exists on a continuum of frequency of interest rather than being binary
  13. The US home mortgage interest deduction was not created by Congress to encourage home ownership
  14. Most artificially fruit-flavored food products use the same formulas, regardless of the fruit flavors advertised.
  15. The average serial killer does not have a mental illness by a legal definition, nor are they highly intelligent, nor are all or most serial killers Caucasian males.
  16. Another misconception holds that chocolate makes a woman's period milder or less painful. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland Wow. Those all got deleted? Nearly all sound like "common misconceptions" worthy of staying in the article. I'll bet an RfC on some of them could have saved a few. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. With a little work many of them could be kept. It’s compelling evidence that this list has not been indiscriminate, and clearly we have generally upheld a high standard. There’s no truth to these dismissals calling the list trivia or cruft or anyone’s pet factoid collection. It deserves some respect. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
THat looks about right. If you dig through, you'll see one editor responsible for the vast majority (if not the totality) of the removals. This all started when I started an ANI thread about Bryn's ownership of the page, and the response wasn't to discuss the behavior, but for several editors to clamor for the article's deletion. Myself, I don't really care whether the article is deleted, or whether this AfD merely results in more eyes on it, so that it can be sorted out. If Bryn can be "shouted down" at the article, that's just as good as having them sanctioned. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
until he started lying - It should be noted Pants bogus ANI went no where and they actually questioned Pants behavior, so he started calling those editors "lairs". And he seems to have just admitted to starting a bogus AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a problem unique to this article. It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. People will be unhappy any time you delete their pet misconception entry, article, article section, etc. That's a fact of life and not a reason to delete this article. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you reading every word above, or only every fourth or fifth word? Because you completely missed where I pointed out that I only opened this because people were calling for it at ANI. Please stop arguing with stuff nobody has said. Also...
It's much easier to add than remove content everywhere on Wikipedia. Wanna bet? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, please. I was replying to Bryn's assertion that this article is bogged down by other editors. I didn't indent over enough. Also, if you only made this AFD to make a point, and not because you actually want this article deleted, then that sounds a little problematic. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 18:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I sound a little too prickly. Having an editor (not you) do nothing except cast aspersions on me and go to ridiculous lengths to disagree with anything I say for several days in a row can have that effect, sometimes.
And as I said, I AfD'd it because other editors opined at ANI that the article was more problematic than Bryn's behavior in it, and should be deleted. It wasn't "my idea" per se, though I'd have been okay with it getting deleted. It's clear now that it won't be deleted (and that doesn't actually bother me even a little), but there were enough people !voting to delete that it's clear that the article needs serious work. If you wouldn't mind adding your thoughts at article talk (in the subsection "Summary thus far", specifically), that would be immensely useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I looked at the "bogus ANI" which was closed without consensus that seems to be part of the reason for this AfD.  What I see there, as here, as at the article is two editors locked in what appears a never-ending dispute, accusing, alleging, calling names, etc.  My guess is that other editors--like me--have limited patience to read the lengthy back-and-forth, where there is some merit to what each is saying and some questionable argumentation tactics by each.  I'm sure each sincerely believes they could make the article better, if only they would get their way.
It's clear neither will convince the other, but because there is little room for anyone else to talk, the discussion is dominated with just two editors arguing back and forth ad nauseum. I'm confident that's why the AN/I produced no finding of fault.
To solve such logjams, it would help to invite other editors to a quantifiable dispute, and make sure to break disputes down into bite-sized questions.  (This AfD will at least answer the concrete question: Is this article worth saving?) Some positions are argued as being more black-and-white than they actually are, and other less-invested editors might be able to find middle ground that would get wider support than the status quo situation. Important is asking other editors questions that don't make them feel they need to read the lengthy back-and-forth in order to make an intelligent and informed answer.  I have a feeling I'm not alone. I believe Smartyllama will back me up (see [16]).
At this point, I'm far less interested in holding either accountable for behavioral indiscretions such as name-calling (which I see on both sides) and instead focusing on this question: What can be done to improve the article? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC) [revised 18:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)][reply]
P.S. If you look immediately below, you will see what I am talking about. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. I'm not going to go any further into that beyond saying that the AfD was an idea that would provide a way forward that didn't involve perpetuating a dispute with Bryn. But of course, it takes two to drop it; as long as Bryn continues to vent his spleen about getting reported to ANI, it'll never truly die down. As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. Once that's sorted out, we can take a fresh look at the entries, both deleted and existing to see what belongs and what doesn't. After that, I plan to start a discussion on format, as it's my opinion that we should be able to get each entry down to 1-2 sentences. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well first, you absolutely don't see any name calling coming from me. Well, this isn't an ANI and we are getting well of topic. Lets just say Pants is less than truthful, I have never seen an editor more likely to comment on the contributor instead of the content and his violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG has been noticed before. He not only does this with me[17][18][19], he has a go at other people[20][21][22][23], so i don't feel left out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: You see what I mean? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Your two replies shows exactly what I am talking about! --David Tornheim (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Right now, it really looks like there are two people trying to perpetuate a conflict, and I'm sure as hell not one of them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for focusing on the details: that's what I'm doing at article talk. The criteria are one such detail. I understand that is the goal. My advice here is to break it down into more bite-sized discussions with simpler questions, which could go to an RfC such as "Should we require that all misconceptions have RS stated by an expert?" I think you will get more progress than you did at the Criteria discussion that asked for too many changes. And then make more space for new editors to talk rather than disappear with TL;DR.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice would be worth a lot more if you were to head on over there and add your thoughts the discussion here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I was the first editor to respond.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was too subtle. Read my above comment (and the next-higher comment of mine) as "Commenting here is pointless, inflammatory and somewhat hypocritical, but commenting at the article talk is just all around helpful. Please stop doing the former and do more of the latter." I can phrase it even more bluntly if you like, though I suspect you catch my drift by now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. My comment is also directed to editors who (like myself) may have come here unaware of the "ridiculous squabble.". Whether you want to take my advice is up to you. I can't see it making much difference which of the many forums this dispute is occurring should make much difference. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I was too subtle. It's not literally about the forum, it's about the topic. If you want to chastise other editors from a high horse (which is what you're doing here); you're not being helpful, indeed, you're helping perpetuate the dispute far more than I am with my dismissive responses to Bryn and continued mentions to you of what you could do to help. If you want to be helpful, there's a discussion that could always use more input (which is over there). You tend to be a very thoughtful editor when you're discussing content, so your voice might well be one of the more useful ones, there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(IMHO) Right now would be an excellent time for an admin to step in and warn both MPants at work and Fountains of Bryn Mawr that the battleground behavior needs to stop now. Take it to an appropriate venue, and don't keep bludgeoning this AfD. I predict a topic ban and interaction ban for both. Now is probably the last opportunity to let it go and avoid sanctions. You both have definitely made your respective cases. We heard you. We get it. Go and bicker no more. Don't say nobody warned you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who feels the need to keep responding to my comments saying "I'd rather talk about the article, let's go talk about the article" to give me shit for doing what I'm making a point of not doing really needs to either learn to shut their pie hole or learn to read; because you're failing at one or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pure WP:ILIKEIT vote, not a valid justification to keep. 🔥flame🔥talk 13:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read the !vote, you'd see he said "I also agree with pretty much all User:TompaDompa wrote. The article is reliably sourced, satisfies WP:LISTN and WP:GNG because many high quality sources exist for this topic. Finally, this article has survived three previous ‘articles for deletion’ community discussions, it would be terribly unfair - outside exceptional new information/justifications with large consensus - for the previous three discussions to be overturned, in my view." How is that just a WP:ILIKEIT vote? Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Casey Clarke Country Countdown[edit]

The Casey Clarke Country Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article about a radio chart show. As always, a syndicated radio program is not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because its own self-published website technically verifies that it exists -- to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, it needs to be the subject of media coverage in sources other than its own PR or the radio stations that it's directly affiliated with. The kind of sources this needs simply aren't out there, however: even on a Google News search, all I can find is a single article in a community hyperlocal which briefly namechecks this show's existence in the process of being more about the host's other show than it is about this one. That's simply not enough media coverage to make a radio show notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 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. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret S. Lifferth[edit]

Margaret S. Lifferth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 19:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 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. Tone 08:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fischer & Söhne AG[edit]

Fischer & Söhne AG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Industrial pollution. I nominated this for speedy as such and it was declined. Please delete so we can get this garbage out of mainspace. It has been bad from day 1 and is only getting worse. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 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 keep. I'm going with the judgement of those who can read the sources in their native language, to evaluate both the WP:N and WP:RS aspects. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nayeem (actor)[edit]

Nayeem (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This actor Fails WP:NACTOR as lack of any notable movie, and fails WP:GNG as well. His most popular movie Chandni fails our WP:NFILM. Currently he is a director, with no notable work. The sources (including Bengali language) don't provide a significant coverage to this person other than Passing mention or trivial coverage related to the promotion of his first film. (Note: Do not confuse him with another young Bangladeshi actor with same name.[24] DBigXrayᗙ 20:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User:NishorgaNiloy Please see the WP:AAD section WP:ILIKEIT. Just stating your opinion is not enough, WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACTOR needs to be proved with appropriate sources that are missing. I have already followed WP:BEFORE and yet I am open to withdraw the nomination if we can prove notabilty. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

∯WBGconverse 03:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mentions in Tabloids as WBG listed above dont help in establishing any WP:SIGCOV. saying multiple hits exist also is of no value, specially when other actors with same name exist. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tabloid? Have you gone bat-shit crazy or are you trolling?
    This states দেশীয় চলচ্চিত্রের অন্যতম সফল তারকা জুটি, তারকা দম্পতি এবং নব্বই দশকের তরুণ তরুণীর হৃদয়ে ঝড় তোলা জুটি নাইম শাবনাজ--One of the most successful pairs of the film-industry and heart-throb of the 90s.
    This states:-কয়েক বছরের চলচ্চিত্রে ক্যারিয়ারে তাঁরা জুটি হয়ে অভিনয় করেন ২০টির মতো ছবিতে। এর মধ্যে উল্লেখযোগ্য হচ্ছে— ‘জিদ’, ‘লাভ’, ‘চোখে চোখে’, ‘অনুতপ্ত’, ‘বিষের বাঁশি’, ‘সোনিয়া’, ‘টাকার অহংকার’, ‘সাক্ষাৎ’ ও ‘ঘরে ঘরে যুদ্ধ’।--In a career spanning a few years, the pair acted in around 20 films.Some mention-able ones are:- ................. Easily manages to secure a NACTOR pass for the subject.
    This states নাঈম-শাবনাজ অতিনীত অধিকাংশ ছবিই ছিল ব্যবসা সফল। --Most of the films acted upon by naeem-Shabnaj pair was commercially successful.
    This states:--শাবনাজ-নাঈম জুটি আসেন চাঁদনী ছবি দিয়ে। চাঁদনী ছবি সে সময় তোলপাড় করে ফেলে সিনেপাড়া থেকে সারাদেশ। বাংলা চলচ্চিত্রে তিনি নবাজাদা হিসেবেই পরিচিত ছিলেন।--Shabnaz-Naeem pair arrived in the film-scape with Chadni, which created ripples across the entire country. Naeem was revered as the prince of the Bangladesh film industry.
    This states:--movies like Chandni (1991) which launched newcomers Shabnaz and Nayeem to super-stardom.
    You ought not expect to locate significant coverage of the subject, in online news-sources, given there was hardly any internet-penetration in the country in the 90s and that he has led a secluded life, away from the spotlight, post millenium.
    A database locates multiple hits for Nayeem + S(h)abnaz in The Daily Star (pre-1995) but it will need some efforts to retrieve them.∯WBGconverse 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WBG as I warned you on ur talk, your Conduct at AfDs with all these ad hominems is getting awful lately, If you cannot follow WP:CIVIL and are going to dish up ad hominems such as this and [25], you should consider staying away from AFDs. Folks dont come to AfDs to listen to your venomous ad hominems.--DBigXrayᗙ 08:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the warning, about which I can't care any less.Back to content, please. ∯WBGconverse 08:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? Come on, you're requesting a relist because the discussion isn't going the way that you'd like. StrikerforceTalk 20:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on !votes? WBG just said it better than I could have. No point repeating the same argument twice. There is no reason to relist in the absence of a strong argument to delete. Consensus seems to be that WBG has thoroughly rebutted the nominator's argument, and the only other delete !vote is "per nom". There appears little reason to waste additional time of experienced editors relisting this for another week's discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 16:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of 4DX motion-enhanced films[edit]


List of 4DX motion-enhanced films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the same reasons as the recently deleted List of D-Box films, i.e. WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:PROMO. 4DX is a similar system to D-Box. Barry Wom (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the quality of sourcing is questionable. There are many references to Twitter, which is a no no. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the twitter-sourcing is fixed now. Sandrobost (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion regarding the List of IMAX DMR films is irrelevant here (although I suspect that list will end at AfD at some point too). See WP:WHATABOUTX. As mentioned, 4DX is a similar system to D-Box and a list of films released in the latter was recently deleted. If that one went, this one should too. And for the same reasons. Barry Wom (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4DX is different from D-Box in many ways, so the fact that the D-Box list got deleted is not reason enough to delete this one too. Where D-Box is usually partially utilized in standard movie theaters (where most seats are normal/non-D-Box seats with a few D-Box seats)[1], 4DX always has a single entire cinema devoted to 4DX, where all seats are "upgraded". D-Box seats also only move/vibrate, whereas 4DX has a large number of environmental effects like wind, rain, fog, lights, and scents. 4DX is also a much more popular technology than D-Box: D-Box is only deployed in 35 countries[2], while 4DX has theaters in 57 countries[3]. This makes a list of 4DX films much more notable than a list of D-Box films. Also, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this page, the main reason for the deletion of the list of D-Box films was the poor condition that list was in, with much of it written like an advertisement. The list of 4DX films is already in much better condition, and if it is not deleted I'll clean it up even more. Sandrobost (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://tech.d-box.com/entertainment/theatrical-entertainment/
  2. ^ http://tech.d-box.com/entertainment/theatrical-entertainment/
  3. ^ http://www.cj4dx.com/aboutus/aboutus.php
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: My later reading of the reasons for deleting the D-Box list of films was because the D-box list was seen as unsupported and promotional in nature, and not because of the technology. Therefore, just because 4DX is a similar technology, does not mean that this list should automatically be deleted. It should be reviewed on its own merits. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully aware of the whole deletion process, but just wondering what else is required to make a decision about this article? This is the third time more comments have been requested, but nothing new has been said here for a couple weeks. The original request for deletion was because the technology was seen as being the same as d-box and the referencing/sourcing for this article was bad. Others have explained that the technology is actually different, and one editor has offered to clean up the referencing/sourcing. Without additional comments is the way forward to keep the page and just fix the sourcing? Harris Seldon (talk) 07:16, 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 keep - It appears they are notable, but the article definitely needs to be expanded to show this. Nominator withdrawal as WP:SNOW applies with this new information. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Mary Barth[edit]

Beatrice Mary Barth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO - a piano teacher is not notable in of itself. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:09, 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inhalt Corporation[edit]

Inhalt Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources found. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 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. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toppr[edit]

Toppr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. References either fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 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. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dogiz[edit]

Dogiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could find no significant coverage in English or Hebrew sources (including with Hebrew name of company). While there is some coverage the lack of multiple independent significant coverage from reliable secondary sources suggests company does not pass WP:NCORP Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 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 redirect to Isshin-ryū#Notable Karateka of Shimabuku. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Fierro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marilyn Fierro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy delete of repost was declined since content and references were different but the underlying reason for deletion remains. Does not meet WP:MANOTE. High rank and Hall of Fame membership are not indications of notability. PRehse (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 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 keep. Initially majority-delete votes, but further analysis flipped consensus to a strong keep. If anyone is unhappy with my close, take it to my talk page and I may reverse it, but the delete opinions offer little reasoning compared to the keep votes. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington Business Park[edit]

Arlington Business Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like page on an unremarkable business park. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is hyper-local and / or routine notices. Created by Special:Contributions/Mbrowne85 with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 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 keep. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fritz[edit]

Robert Fritz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads like a serious piece of self promotion. Only a single ref and searched yield plenty of advertisements for his books from Amazon and the like, but nothing of any independence and reliability. Fails WP:AUTHOR  Velella  Velella Talk   18:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 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. Tone 08:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Edwards (politician)[edit]

Eddie Edwards (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

coverage of unelected political candidate is only with the context of his candidacy for elective office ... does not meet threshold of WP:NPOL Wolfson5 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this would meet minimum standards for notability. I might be mistaken. He's received some big name endorsements. To be clear, Ocasio-Cortez hasn't won any office but is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uhtregorn (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ocasio-Cortez easily passes WP:GNG on her own, please avoid WP:OSE arguments. SportingFlyer talk 06:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points all around! Did not know some of these, but glad I do now! Uhtregorn (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL. State Liquor Control Board and small-town sheriff do not make notability. Tone is overly promotional, but that's to be expected in election season. I'd say it could event be a G11 candidate. Bkissin (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal - WP:BEFORE check was flawed. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Maejima[edit]

Shinji Maejima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be WP:PROMO. No sources, so the claim of significance of creating the first Japanese translation of One Thousand and One Nights cannot be verified as true. May fail WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as well. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:03, 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. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Hand Clapping (band)[edit]

One Hand Clapping (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. It was created by an IP in the pre-Seigenthaler Wikipedia, and the two attempts at nominating at VfD (as was) were reverted as "vandalism". How times have changed. I don't believe the article has ever had any sources in it in the near-13 years of its existence, and I can't find any. It doesn't help that there appears to be a 1974 documentary by Paul McCartney with the same name, but even that doesn't have much in the way of sources either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 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 redirect to States and territories of Australia. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked list of states and territories of Australia[edit]

Ranked list of states and territories of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom on behalf on an IP editor. Rationale is:

States and territories of Australia has sortable tables that show the same contents as this page. --173.166.74.233 (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk YO! 13:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 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. Tone 08:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Pro Fastpitch Career Lists[edit]

National Pro Fastpitch Career Lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of music museums[edit]

List of music museums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

totally unsourced list that fails WP:LISTN as the large majority of the entries do not have their own pages. it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: In the selection criteria for lists WP:CSC there are 3 types of lists a: Every entry meets the notability criteria and should either be blue or red linked, but if redlinked they have to be verifiably à member of the list b: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria and these lists are better off in the main article which in this case would be Music museums. and c: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. This list is none of the above and when nominated had no sources whatsoever. If we are going to consider it is the first kind of list then every single entry that is not blue linked must be sourced even if it is redlinked. Just because this kind of list exists on other wikiprojects is not a reason for it to exist here. Each wiki project has its own criteria and guidelines. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: I've just quickly looked for a footnote for the first items in the list which didn't [yet] have their own article (diff) - they were easy to find and I imagine that it would be a simple (if tedious) task to continue down the list. If I were to create the list myself I would probably have specified 'musical instrument museums' (and thereby excluding various halls of fame, those dedicated to individual bands/styles of music) and so that might be a way to narrow and thereby improve the scope of this article. I do agree that the article scope as it stands is vague and prone to being a hodge-podge collection of items. However, the fact that it's currently sub-optimal doesn't mean it has to be shot on sight. Wittylama 14:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: what do you think about drfatifying it until it is up to scratch? Dom from Paris (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to know what @Ymnes: thinks about that idea - as they are the one who translated the article into English and would, therefore presumably, be the one doing any work in draft mode. Wittylama 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what 'drfatifying' means, but I'll reply here soon. My list is very much OK now. Ymnes (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that is simply not true, is "it is impossible to even identify where most of the places are outside of the name of the town". In fact it is incredibly easy to find each of the museums. The internet is full of mentions of music museums. This list could very well have existed without any source, since one can verify the entries very easily.
When this application was done here, I was still busy building it up. Now I have completed it, the list complies very much to the rules Wikipedia has set in WP:LISTN. Let me cite:
  • "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I have given dozens of sources in the article that show that there are many sources that write about music museums, musicians museums, musical instrument museums, etc. There are really plenty of them.
  • "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
  • "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable"
So according to the rules, this list is very much OK. Each country contains blue links or sources or both, and there are dozens of sources given that refer to music museums as a group. The rules on Wikipedia do not require to do more than that. I work with the list in Dutch for two years now and I have the experience that the list is very correct. Next to that one can verify the existence of each museum very easily.
When I view what is the usual way how lists on Wikipedia are referenced with sources (I checked some dozens of lists in the Category:Lists of museums by country), than my list may be rewarded as a featured list. This is really a good list in comparison to other lists on Wikipedia.
I can find no reason at all, why this list should be deleted. I ask the applicant therefore to remove the nomination. Ymnes (talk) 15:49, 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 redirect to List of mammal genera. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of mammal species[edit]

List of mammal species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(for some preceding discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#"List_of_mammal_species"_article)

This massive alphabetical list is a functional duplicate of lists already in existence: List of mammal genera, List of placental mammals, List of monotremes and marsupials, and a number of separate sub-lists, e.g. List of rodents - all of which share the characteristic of having a rational layout organized by taxonomic relationships. In contrast, an alphabetical order is essentially an arbitrary one for this content, as there is no practical reason for requiring the material sorted by alphabet. If a user knows enough about a species to search by genus or species name, they will simply use the search bar - no need for this vast pile as an intermediate step. If they require taxonomic, evolutionary or etymological information, the existing list articles are much better sources.

As a secondary issue, the list currently is in a horrible state (having been copied over from Wikiversity [33]) and contains hundreds of dab links and thousands of redlinks. That can be cleared up, but given the above concerns, I strongly question whether it is worth the effort. Lastly, referencing this thing will always remain a pipe dream. I suggest deletion or redirection to List of mammal genera (although I'd consider the name unlikely as a search term). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "keep AND merge"? And did you see the bit about the search bar above? And what do these references have to do with anything...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The content is already at List of placental mammals and List of monotremes and marsupials. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To give an idea of how notable this is. Leo1pard (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Panthera leo". In Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 546. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.
  2. ^ A World List of Mammalian Species
  3. ^ Mammals of North America: Second Edition
  4. ^ Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification
  5. ^ COMMON NAMES MAMMALS WORLD PB
I endorse OP's argument that better and more useful lists exist, and that an alphabetic list is arbitrary.
There is also the problem noted by OP: the links are to the specific epithet of the species, which is not a distinguishing feature. No zoologist would ever refer to a species by its specific epithet alone, except in casual conversation when the genus was already clear. As a result, the article contains literally thousands of bad links. I patrol the User:DPL bot report Disambiguation pages with links. Since 24 September 2018, I have been presented with and have fixed 42 links to DAB pages in the range a-atys alone. I have no intention of fixing any bad links other than those to DAB pages. (As of today, there are 6,236 bad links to DAB pages; see WP:TDD. New bad links are created at the rate of around 500-800/day, and trying to keep on top of them is a full-time job for several editors.)
IMO the best solution is WP:TNT. Narky Blert (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I estimate about 5% errors in the links to DAB pages. So far (a-ce), I have found 1 misspelled genus, 3 misspelled epithets, 1 extinct species, and 1 unknown to science (no, not the Giant Rat of Sumatra, unfortunately). Narky Blert (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Genera" is a bit of a niche word. People might not know what it means or if it is the article they're looking for, which is why the redirect from species could be nice. Enwebb (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Creationists don't believe in species, they believe in 'kinds' and 'baraminology', both of which fall under WP:FRINGE, and which can for that reason be ignored except in articles about pseudo-science. Narky Blert (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 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. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaunak Chakraborty[edit]

Shaunak Chakraborty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: ANYBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. References include Google search and an alternative Wikipedia - neither of which are acceptable or reliable secondary sources. Another, whilst in Hindi, appears to be just the lyrics to one of his poems (nothing else). Dan arndt (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, but why should we keep this article? You have not provided a valid reason. StormContent 15:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link is virtually content-free, and explicitly noted to have been contributed by a user of the site as opposed to a serious journalist or book reviewer. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:23, 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 merge to Free Studio. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DVDVideoSoft[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DVDVideoSoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP just like the last time it was deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Free Studio

I am also nominating the following related pages because had prod but is a related article and merge candidate:

Free Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it hard that either would be deleted or both. If WP:NSOFTWARE is inaccurate then what is our guideline? A ten years old software with coverage in multiple reliable sources should continue having stand alone article. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Szzuk, No ANI has been mentioned in this discussion to this point until you have brought it up, and you have not identified the particular ANI in question. And that ANI, if it is the one I am thinking of, was in my option raised due the the disruption fallout from PRODs and AfDs. Now in my opinion there is no plausible outcome from this discussion up to this point apart from a merge to 'Free Studio', and to some degree I have implicitly given a commitment to attempt a good faith merge (unless someone else volunteers and does it right) should merge be the final outcome. From my point of view the sooner that is done, dusted and cleared the less disruption it is to me and likely Wikipedia in general. At the risk of tainting HighKing (if I recall rightly, and I may not, I think we have on occasion voted differently at AfDs and maybe have connected on some Ireland related articles), I in good faith believe him to be independent and not tainted by the ANI or other associated fracious AfD discussions in this set, and suggest closer notes this. From my point of view I would prefer a WP:BOLD closer decision on this rather than a relist due to upcoming effort required in the merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DownThemAll![edit]

AfDs for this article:
DownThemAll! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just like the last time it was deleted, it is still not notable, has no mentions in reliable sources, and has only routine coverage and passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Given that browser extensions are WP:MILL" - there's actually no basis in policy, guideline, essay or discussion for that is there? In fact, the consensus of browser extension articles that exist is the opposite, isn't it? Widefox; talk 19:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, a source is not "independent" if it is owned by a company that owns multiple properties, or links to downloads of that product. Independence in this case means not directly tied to the subject of the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not my logic. What I meant by MacWorld and PCWorld not being independent isn't that they weren't independent of the software, but that they can't count as two sources since MacWorld is affiliated to PCWorld. The other thing I definitely did not say. wumbolo ^^^ 16:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit dismissive to label them all lacking "independent", when the term is used in two different ways. They have different authors and content, making the IDG link seem stretching. Beware of WP:BLUDGEON, let others find sources and improve the place. Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is an arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Widefox; talk 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Matt14451 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FireTune[edit]

FireTune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. My concern was that this product is not notable and has no mention in reliable sources. With regards to the sources present in the article, the Lifehacker article is promotional and mostly a press release, and Gigaom is a blog so it can't demonstrate notability here. wumbolo ^^^ 18:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More sources in German: https://www.chip.de/downloads/FireTune_14745423.html, https://www.netzwelt.de/download/3798-firetune.html, https://www.pcwelt.de/news/Firetune-0-5-Firefox-Tuner-in-neuer-Version-281819.html And in Spanish: https://es.ccm.net/download/descargar-3239-firetune, https://www.malavida.com/es/soft/firetune/
I'm looking for non-English sources because Firefox is more popular in Europe than in the US. I'm sure you can find more in Russian, Italian, Polish, etc. But I think just the English sources would establish notability anyway. Laurent (talk) 10:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A software product is a product yes, but not all software are products no. So not per se, no, see Software a generic term that refers to a collection of data or computer instructions where the word "product" is only used in the commercial section. It'd be wrong for some software. source code isn't necessarily a product either, but is software. Software may also be a service e.g. Software as a service. If you're serious about removing over a thousand references I suggest you take that up elsewhere and gain consensus. Widefox; talk 18:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is so bad that it cites a blog, then it's better to just remove all unreliable sources from those articles, article by article. And there is a policy called WP:BLOGS. wumbolo ^^^ 13:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is clear for everyone else to see - yes while blogs are generally not allowed, they are still allowed, and this one used in >1K articles (whatever the individual merit of that particular site). WP:BLOGS isn't as black and white as you think - it says Exercise caution, not never use. Attempting to hold this article to a standard way above others (as you have done on many of these AfDs) is not a convincing argument for me. I'm undecided myself on this one, it doesn't appear notable but we shouldn't be swayed by overly-simplistic mass deletion attempts where everything is incorrectly labelled a "product". For certain this will be a WP:PERMASTUB, so for that alone it should be merged or deleted. These noms seem to be applying overly simplistic understanding of the rules (and misconceptions) for mass deletion. Is that in the reader's interest? (There's certainly no consensus for it at these 20-40 AfDs.) Widefox; talk 18:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OF COURSE there is no consensus in these AfDs when you and Bradv provide so stupid (read: not based on policy and often based on essays) arguments! And then you vote to topic ban me. I was almost inclined to stop AfDing because of you stalking me, but I will not stop because I don't want to leave the articles to people like you to determine notability. wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate place for discussing that allegation is WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo not here. Widefox; talk 13:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you hear yourself?! You are the one wanting to discuss my "misconceptions", and constantly bringing it up (see WP:DEADHORSE). So you can talk about it wherever you please but I can't defend myself anywhere except at ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 19:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's right it looks borderline to me, leaning towards weak delete. The logo/branding issue was a notable topic, but this is too out of scope for Mozilla software rebranded by Debian. A merge target isn't obvious to me right now. Widefox; talk 10:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC). (I rhave subsequent re-entered the discussion lower).[reply]
  • I indicated my main concern was the logo/branding (and perhaps if that was more widespread). I have some some searching and decided not to pursue. While I would perhaps have gone weak delete I am minded there have been other sources found which I have little interest in checking. I am currently therefore leaving the decision to others. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For information, CNET and Clubic aren't just download sites, they do proper reviews too. download.cnet.com is used as a source 380 times in Wikipedia, and clubic.com 50 times, it's also used 741 times in French Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 06:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you justify why you're using NPRODUCT, when per the discussion above this is disputed relevance here? Can you say which company is involved? Shouldn't this be merged into that companies article per NPRODUCT if correct and not notable? Widefox; talk 00:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know what NPRODUCT is? I'm just providing third-party sources which I believe are relevant and reliable. I don't know what company created this add-on and don't know if they have a page on Wikipedia. If they do, yes maybe we can merge to that page. Laurent (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 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. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Teja Cherupalli[edit]

Vivek Teja Cherupalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod - Non-notable martial artist - no support of WP:MANOTE PRehse (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:14, 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. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fun88[edit]

Fun88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Eight year old page that still has no references asserting notability. The page was created within two years of the company's founding by an account that still has content for the company on both its user and talk page. The only RS I can find are articles that discuss Fun88 sponsoring soccer teams, but articles on their on-field ads don't appear (at least to me) to show that the company is truly notable. Isingness (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:49, 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. Tone 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALPS The Bus[edit]

ALPS The Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:46, 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. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Pasalubong[edit]

Ceres Pasalubong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:40, 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. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Star Bus Transit[edit]

Southern Star Bus Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:39, 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. Tone 08:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor Express[edit]

Bachelor Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:52, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:38, 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. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bogdanoff[edit]

Steve Bogdanoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find enough Rs to establish GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:35, 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 no consensus. Mz7 (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Colas[edit]

Eva Colas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1RU at a national pageant ---> non-notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus even after two relists .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 10:32, 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. While this result may well be biased by the lack of English-language sources, there's good consensus here to delete. The two people arguing to keep are mostly saying, With 5000 seats, it must be notable, but that's not an argument which convinced the other discussants. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monastir Indoor Sports Hall[edit]

Monastir Indoor Sports Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's subject may not be notable per the guidelines at WP:NBUILD. Google searching "Monastir Indoor Sports Hall" did not return any significant coverage of the subject. It appears to have been nominated for deletion under WP:PROD under a different article name, was blocked by the creator, and later moved for unrelated reasons. The editor who created the article has since retired.

Because the subject is located in a non-English-speaking country, a lack of readily available articles in English may be a symptom of WP:WORLDVIEW as opposed to a lack of notability, so despite nominating this article for deletion, I'd particularly invite arguments for keep, especially if reliable sources can be found in other languages. Rosguilltalk 05:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 00:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we need an Arabic speaker. A quick search with the name translated into Arabic gives 110,000 hits, which might or might not prove something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible for there to be lots of trivial coverage because it's the stadium of a more notable handball team. Unfortunately, a lot of the search results didn't allow me to copy the text in order to translate it. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist . Looks like Arabic sources cannot be assessed without an Arabic speaker .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 10:31, 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. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O3plus[edit]

O3plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason and because they seem to be duplicate articles:

O3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWLAs per the comment by User:Bkonrad thanks, I should have checked out the history. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

fails WP:NORG. The sources are product placement stuff in lists. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search. Looks like a WP:UPE Dom from Paris (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 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. Tone 08:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kropschot[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joseph Kropschot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable MMA fghter - not even close to meeting WP:NMMA with only a single pro fight in an organisation that isn't even second tier. PRehse (talk) 10:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The creator was advised in the first AFD a year ago that the article then would be deleted because the subject was an amateur. They waited until beyond when the subject had a pro bout and met the communicated standard. Now this new deletion nomination asserts the subject is "not even close" with only a single pro fight. Well, that is not valid as an argument, or soon will not be, because as has been noted, the subject is up for their second pro bout this weekend. During the course of this AFD it is guaranteed that the basis for the AFD will be be countered. And it is possible that new coverage of this 2nd bout will establish by wp:GNG that the subject is notable (and note, article creator, that GNG policy trumps any other guideline). Upon review of the notability guideline linked from wp:NMMA, now I do see a section, never yet alluded to in any communication with respect to this subject, that there is an arbitrary criteria that 3 pro bouts means a MMA person is notable. Well, that is evidence of Wikipedia insanity, IMHO, too, because what is the magic about 3? What, do you think a 23 year old MMA fighter undefeated as an amateur, with an amateur championship belt (which Kropschot has) and with 2 pro wins (which Kropchot might have by this weekend), say, is not going to get a third pro bout? And, why the hell didn't any of the multiple editors who are coming across as deletion-crazy to me now, why didn't any of them say this. They just have said, like here, without explaining, that the topic is obviously-to-them not notable. Okay, why the insansity, perhaps it is to protect innocent potential BLP subjects from harm somehow? Well, what is harmful? The article could use inline referencing to support the specific facts it puts forth, but what does the article say that could be construed as harmful? That the subject was born in San Ramon, California? That the subject is about 23 years old? Of course the subject was born some time and somewhere. Come on people, you are coming across as insane. It would be okay to tag the article for reference improvements. But the overall remedy is to drop this and for y'all collectively to go away, seriously. Get a life, Wikipedia editors. Drop this madness. --Doncram (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was quite a polemic, but I don't see your point. There is no significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and he needs 3 top tier professional fights, not 3 professional fights. I suggest you read WP:NMMA more carefully. Papaursa (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:NMMA in my discussions with them. And you can see me as a deletionist, but these are the policies of the project. If you wish for individual articles like this to be kept, you need to advocate for change on the standard, not just ask for exceptions to it. Also you can't predict that GNG can be satisfied at any point in time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review of wp:NMMA, and given that I am not right now able to find any substantial coverage of the fight that was supposed to have taken place this last weekend, I do concede that the notability of the topic is not established. Some points that seem to matter is that there seems to have been extensive previous discussion setting up the NMMA standard, and that the standard highlights quality levels of MMA organizations (and Kropshot does not seem to be in the higher quality level), and that 3 pro bouts in the higher level seem to be required, not just one pro bout at any level. I note these points for reference to the editor who created the article and who seemed to think the process was unfair, referencing the previous AFD's guidance.
I don't object to this being closed "Delete" or even "Snow Delete" now, against my solitary-looking !vote above. Which I guess I should strike, in this edit. --Doncram (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. G4 by RHaworth; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrettyLitter (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prettylitter[edit]

AfDs for this article:


Prettylitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this product meets WP:GNG nor does the company of the same name meet WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage of either in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the product. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:17, 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. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harrish Sairaman[edit]

Harrish Sairaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are 1 an unsigned puff piece 2 a passing mention 3 a puff piece from a web site that provides "the latest breaking news and videos straight from the world of the weird and wonderful". 4 a piece written by the subject, 5 affiliated 6 a piece written by the subject 7 affiliated. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:46, 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 speedy delete. WP:A7, possible WP:G3. There is no obvious indication that this record label, or the people alleged to have run it, actually existed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHI Records[edit]

CHI Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Doesnt seem to exist any more. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:18, 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. Ultimately I find the delete opinions more convincing, particularly Chrissymad's analysis of the sources present in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elsinore (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elsinore (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was inexplicably kept in 2010 but I see no evidence it actually meets inclusion criteria. The most significant source was from the AV club but aside from that everything appears to be hyper local and they don't appear to have charted. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NBAND. The AV Club link comes up as a 404, and there is no real information in the article past the lede. Bkissin (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those arguments justifies deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my reason for nominating had nothing to do with the 404 as it was easily available via archived versions. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rest, this is exactly why I nommed it - the huffpo piece is an interview in a blog, as are most of the rest or hyper local blogs. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources listed above are clearly neither blogs nor 'hyper local'. --Michig (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect, Michig. This, aside from two sentences is an interview, this is a blog, blog, two sentences in a blog, announcement, hyper local show listing/interview, hyper local. And to be honest, as far as the Demig reviews go, I'm not convinced that the same person reviewing a band 5 times (Mark Demig) constitutes the multiple sources covering it required. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two of Mark Deming's reviews among the 14 sources listed, not five as you state. There are also two reviews from PopMatters and one from Exclaim!. As for the blogs, these are newspaper staff blogs, and are reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs by nature are not useful for establishing notability since they are not subject to the same editorial oversight. Also you're not addressing the fact that they are hyper local. Riverfront Times is local and not significant. As far as the reviews, All of the reviews and biogs on AllMusic are written by the same person and the two popmatters reviews are 3 sentences each. Pastemagazine is a blog. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Allmusic bio and reviews are significant coverage in a reliable source. The PopMatters reviews may be fairly brief but still valid. The Exclaim! review is significant coverage in a reliable source. Paste magazine is not a blog. If newspapers and magazines publish 'blog' posts by their staff on the newspaper/magazine website, we should assume that they are happy that they are of sufficient quality, i.e. they do have sufficient editorial oversight. All newspapers are local - if the coverage was all local to the band there might be an argument for not treating it as evidence of notability, but it isn't. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that Paste is not a magazine in and of itself but that particular piece is a blog as you can clearly see if you click the link. None of this amounts to the required in depth coverage. And a piece that is almost entirely aside from 2 sentences an interview is not independent coverage.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the amount of information about this band, it is unfortunate that this article has remained in the state that it's in since the first Deletion discussion 8 years ago. Michig, you seem to know a lot about this band, I invite you to incorporate the sources you found into the article so that this doesn't happen again. Bkissin (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin half of those sources are problematic as they're blogs or typical local paper "this show is happening" announcements. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bkissin NO BLACKMAIL! No "improve this article, or we'll kill it." I invite you to exclude yourself from all deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear, let's remember to WP:AGF here and watch how we interact with other users. Claims of "blackmail" are ridiculous. I was noting that this is a three-sentence article that has twice survived Deletion discussions. In that time none of the 14 sources that Michig was able to find have been added to this article to bolster its notability and create an article that would in any way meet WP:NMUSIC. My suggestion was that if so many sources are able to be found on this band (despite the fact that Chrissymad has suggested they would largely not meet WP:RS for notability), then the information in those sources should be added to the prose of the article. Unless of course the articles brought up have nothing of substance in them, and are merely passing mentions of the band and therefore would not meet the Wiki standards for notability. Both you and Michig are strong supporters of keeping this article, go ahead and improve it. Bkissin (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bkissin, how about _you_ remember to WP:AGF? You vote to delete and challenge others to improve. This is bad behavior. Deletion discussions are not to be based on "improve, or else...". Until you understand this, I really think that WP would be better served if you avoided deletion discussions. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, instead of nitpicking Michig's refs, howza about you use those cycles to engage in a bit moreWP:BEFORE before nominating? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hobbes Goodyear How about you stop with the personal attacks and ridiculous accusations? I did do before and I still agree with my nomination as well as my analysis of the sources. If you think my nomination was in bad faith, take it to ANI, otherwise chill out and stop attacking people for following guidelines and policy. Further, you're the only one asserting "or else" nonsense.CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chrissymad, I do not think that your nomination was made in bad faith. I don't think that I have been "attacking people for following guidelines and policy". You clearly disagree with me, but given the statements made, I think that "nonsense" is a little harsh. Oh, well. I will try to "chill out". Thank you for your feedback. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not asking you to apologise for doing a search, though I would have preferred a bit of sorting by quality. Whether Parasol Records qualifies as "one of the more important indie labels" is a bit debatable, but coverage in sources trumps any of the Subject Specific Notability Guidelines. While WP:NMUSIC states that topics that meet those criteria "may be notable", it does not create inherent notability, especially when we search and can't find adequate sourcing to meet the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Marshall[edit]

Bernadette Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an apparent autobiography which fails the GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 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 Johnny & Associates#Trainees. Yunshui 雲水 08:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny's Jr.[edit]

Johnny's Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a combination of spam/fan trivia and a screaming BLP violation. Or a directory. Or something that doesn't pass the GNG. Take your pick. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:02, 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. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Berdichevsky[edit]

Leonid Berdichevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Cannot find sources to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:09, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 01:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Dewey[edit]

David Dewey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Watercolor artist. I can't find independent SIGCOV to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:40, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NewVantage Partners[edit]

NewVantage Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed this but didn't spot that it was PRODed before so it was declined - This article is spammy spam native advertising that does not meet WP:NCORP - sources are mentions and don't offer any independent analysis Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick google search brings up significant coverage which means its notable by WP:GNG that being said should it remain on Wikipedia? Well if the writer who created the article cleaned it up because right now it a clear mess. Maybe in all fairness, this article should be made into a draft giving the writer time to make improvements. Freetheangels (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Freetheangels, please link the coverage; that coverage must satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and I don't see sources that do; WP:N is also not the only factor for keeping an article, per WP:DEL14 promotional articles can also be deleted per WP:NOTPROMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 23:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGot[edit]

FlashGot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article contains unreliable sources, and the subject gains only passing mentions in reliable sources and literature. Previously PRODded but declined. wumbolo ^^^ 13:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? See WP:GNG There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected (emphasis own). Widefox; talk 11:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think 2 > "multiple", then you also think 1 = "multiple", which is wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's a straw man. See wikt:multiple More than one. 2>1. (and by "more than GNG", it's clearly short for "more than needed by GNG" ie satisfied GNG, i.e. (2 to 7) > 1 if we're being precise, not that I've ever seen that at AfD) I note that's the same reasoning as User:Wefa. Widefox; talk 13:38, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Just to endorse... You're OK, I'm OK per WP:VOTESTACK). Widefox; talk 09:38, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Leggett Chase[edit]

Paula Leggett Chase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE. While the subject has appeared in several notable productions, they do not appear to have had important roles, and the claim in the lead that the subject had starring roles in Law & Order and 30 Rock appears to be false. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:20, 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 and redirect to Single Integrated Operational Plan. Yunshui 雲水 08:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency War Order[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Emergency War Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content should be presumed to be dubious / falsified. Created by Special:Contributions/OberRanks currently site-banned for fabricating content and sources. For specific issues with the article, please see: User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/OberRanks#Emergency_War_Order. For more info, please see ANI:OberRanks and fabricated sources. Delete per WP:TNT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have no objection to delete & redirect as suggested below. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 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. Tone 08:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Vachiralai Chiangmai United F.C.[edit]

North Vachiralai Chiangmai United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FOOTYN team has not yet played a single match and fails WP:GNG the sources are routine reports in a local paper about the forming of this university team a scan of an administratif document and the facebook page for the team. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 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.
More