< 28 January	30 January >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Ahir[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement, simply the statement, "The above said person has been selected as Member of District Planning Committee which is a bery (sic) well status to be known in India." Even taking that into account, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL pretty clearly. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, This Indian National Congress politician has never won an election. In 2018 state Assembly he was the runner up [1], He was covered in 2013 for the drama and tantrum he threw for getting the election nomination.[2] He still lost though. Nothing notable done by the subject yet. So I dont see any reason for keeping this. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. ~~It's a one sentence stub.~~^{Not a real reason, per Phil Bridger.} Let's close this per WP:SNOW. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a one-sentence stub is not a reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. The decision here should be based on the notability or lack thereof, not the length of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger It's not that. I am saying this should have been WP:PROD. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 15:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MattLongCT - It was prodded, and the prod was contested, hence we are here.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, oh that's fun... My apologies to Phil Bridger then. I have removed the stub comment from my !vote, but the rest still stands. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are left with no reason at all. The subject is probably not notable, but your comments here amount to little more than trolling, rather than any proper contribution to this discussion. Would you have approached an article about a defeated candidate for a seat in the Connecticut House of Representatives in the same way? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, woah let's leave Connecticut out of this. I am not here to troll. I will apologize again for a bit of an acerbic tone I have wrongly conducted myself here with. However, I generally find it frustrating when we have articles such as this that need several days to go through the whole deletion process, and then the debates here actually end up having more edits than the article itself does.

I simply wanted to type something up quick but not repeat comments that had not already been said, so is why I wrote It's a one sentence stub. as part of my justification for SNOW. I didn't mean to agitate you when I wrote that nor when I crossed it out after ceding that point to you. As you stated, being a stub really isn't a reason to delete, but the current !vote still has stood unanimous against this article. Thus reveals the point of WP:SNOW. I can't add any new insight here besides that citation. You are free to call WP:SNOW an illigemente assertion in this matter, but I will not yield such any time soon. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. Unelected nominees have a much higher bar in terms of the required coverage, and this nominee does not meet that bar. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The question is not whether the subject meets political notability. They don't, and that isn't the question. The question is whether they meet general notability, and they do not. Therefore:
Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (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 11:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Blatch[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently globally notable actress. Fancruft. Quis separabit? 22:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet another actress with no mention at all of her stage performances. I will attempt to add them, based on reviews in newspapers and theatre magazines. (WP:NACTOR says nothing at all about a requirement to be "globally notable".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have made a start on the article, and added tables of stage and screen roles (more work to do). She has definitely had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances, and meets WP:NACTOR #1. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by Rebecca during the AfD. She meets WP:NACTOR, and the article's references show that. (see the improvements made here) --DannyS712 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. This is not IMDb. None of the sources cite her as noteworthy, the links that do work merely record her amongst the general cast list and do not single out her performance or cite her as important, and a large proportion of the linked sources merely take one to the British Newspaper Archive subscription front page without sourcing the claims at all.Pupsbunch (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument is not in line with policy. Per WP:PAYWALL, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." WP:RSC: "Reliable sources must be able to be verified. This does not mean that any particular person at any given moment must be capable of verifying them. .. The costs or difficulties of verifying a source do not impact its reliability, so long as it is possible for someone to verify it within a reasonable time." RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't know what this article looked like before, but thanks to RebeccaGreen, it now passes NACTOR with flying colors. Blatch had major rôles in major productions and included in the article are critics' reviews of some of her performances. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Keep As per RebeccaGreen, it passes the Wikipedia:NACTOR since she had major roles in major productions and reviews of her performances, but it is lacking web coverage such as Google and other sites which makes me skeptical. Sheldybett (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I agree with the people who want to keep this article for the reasons that they are giving. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, thanks to RebeccaGreen who (or is it whom?:)) i have WP:FAITH in (not that i dont have it in other editors its just that if she says there is a source and its behind a paywall i believe her ... ok coola, we get it:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jansen (artist)[edit]

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

Lacks GNG and notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any coverage at all in RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not seeing much, however there's evidence of exhibitions here, and a story here. Given his era, there might be more offline (and/or in a language with a non-Roman alphabet for international exhibitions, including Arabic or Greek), but it's not near a keep with what's currently available. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Sexton[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Also might be an WP:AUTOBIO GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NPOL as an elected Tuscaloosa County county sheriff. The community has not presumed inherent notability for this position. --Enos733 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County sheriffs are not handed an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL just because they exist — but this is written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, and is far too dependent on primary sources rather than notability-supporting reliable sources that would help get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2019 (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 Momoland. Per WP:ATD and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Seung Ri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of notable activities outside of the group. Rockysmile11^(talk) 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, and really crappy article without any source, should have been speedy deleted Snowflake91 (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momoland. Last AfD was a low-participation "no consensus" after one editor suggested that this article be given time to develop. Well, here we are. It looks like this article was created in response to some superficial coverage this particular member of Momoland got in the Philippines for resembling Liza Soberano. That can be covered in one sentence in the Momoland article, or not at all, with no loss to our readers. So, WP:NOPAGE for now, preserving the history so anyone can merge content outside of AfD processes, and also just in case she pulls a Tzuyu or something. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Momoland. I put some references in the article, but she seems to have no career outside of Momoland. The much longer Korean wikipedia article on Nancy refers to Momoland for her discography, with the exception of one song on an album called Popular Music Crush Part 2. The Music biography notability guidelines seem to indicate that a singer with a career with one group (and not otherwise noteworthy) should redirect to the group. If her one-sentence biographical information is merged into Momoland article, I could copy in the information for some of the other band members. M.boli (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom, notability not established. Currently not a single source provided from WP:KO/RS. Just a thought; not sure if a redirect in this case is the best option because it might cause confusion with Seungri who's real last name is Lee. Redalert2fan (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not needed, it links only to Nancy (given name) and List of Korean Americans (no article = no inclusion on those lists, so it gets unlinked anyway). When she will pass notability criterias, the article should be called Nancy (singer) anyway since no one address her as "Lee Seung Ri". Snowflake91 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estates at Acqualina[edit]

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

The sources for this article are all press releases, and there doesn't seem to be much else. The creator is also likely an undisclosed paid editor. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somebody appears to have mistaken Wikipedia for one of those free giveaway real estate listing magazines. --Calton | Talk 05:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo piece, trivial, no showing of being notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant promotion of a non-notable development. --Lockley (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional fluff piece written by a likely UPE that doesn't show that it meets the notability criteria. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim O'Hara[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NPOL, and possible WP:PROMO article for former gubernatorial candidate. GPL93 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing my nomination of the page for AfD. I know realize he passes NPOL (former state representative). Apologies, GPL93 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject is a local farmer turned small business owner, a part-time local county commissioner, and a 2012 candidate for a failed gubernatorial run in Montana. A short CBS story about the subject's state-wide campaign on a shoestring budget is the only reliable source found, and that article by itself does not elevate the subject to notability. Fails WP:BIO and WP:POL, and does not meet notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) Withdrawing !vote, per nom. AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Aaron Booth who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of the Montana House of Representative (2017-2019) (as James). Ballotpedia bio. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair to the nominator, at the time of nomination the article was completely eliding his term in the state legislature — it hadn't been substantively updated since 2012, so it was stuck entirely on the NPOL fails and contained no information at all about the game-changer. It has now been updated to properly reflect his NPOL-passing role, however, so while it does still need improvement it's on more solid ground already. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (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. Firstly, an AfD that starts "This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway" is probably an invalid argument (unless Rhadow is invoking WP:IAR and treating this as "Articles for discussion" where more people will see the debate). Opinions are split between keeping and merging; neither of those two actions require any administrator action and can be done simply by being bold outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hapa Road railway station[edit]

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

This article should be REDIRECTed to its parent Western Railway. It is an example of a sub-stub-class article. Look at its present condition. It includes Indic script in the infobox. The article text includes information from only one subject-sponsored website Indiarailinfo. There are four references gratuitously added that have nothing to do with the article text. The text of the lede was added by rote or programmatically, exactly the same as hundreds of other articles, including the same grammatical errors. And at this station, no trains stop according to Indiarailinfo. The article is not useful to a reader. Rhadow (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian-railway related AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonasan railway station
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hapa Road railway station — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyw7 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All railway stations are notable. This principle was recognized many years ago so that we would not have arguments about small and unexciting railway stations. Including the local name of the station in the infobox is perfectly reasonable. Being temporarily closed while the railway line is upgraded does not diminish the station's notability. Disused stations are notable, just like those is current use. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to Indic script, please see MOS:INDICSCRIPT. This has been discussed and settled seven times. Rhadow (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have long determined that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, well not ALL stations are notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations. It still need third party coverage --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, we have long presumed that they all are. That's a mere essay. It does not reflect actual consensus. See WP:RAILOUTCOMES for a summary of actual consensus. I'm not sure I've ever seen a railway station deleted here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, well merge is also an option. I think the OP is calling for a merge not a deletion.

It still need to pass GNG to get a stand-alone article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Eastmain says above, the reason we have this consensus is to try to avoid having these debates, which invariably end in keeping the article, in the first place. It does usually work! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp, well merge is always an option. And as User:Ahecht says below it promotes circular reasoning. I, therefore, think the best course of action is a merge as I don't think it is worthy of an individual articular despite it perhaps being notable. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Ahmedabad railway division Not finding third-party coverage to even pass WP:GNG. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability_(Railway_lines_and_stations)#Stations, it says stations are not inherently notable. It still need to pass WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see why railway stations should get an exemption from WP:N and WP:NGEO that other municipal structures, such as schools, aren't afforded. Citing WP:RAILOUTCOMES may be an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning, although overcoming that may require an RFC similar to the secondary schools RFC. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an illustration of consensus to try and avoid editors nominating these articles in the first place and therefore long, unnecessary, timewasting debates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Necrothesp, well it's circular reasoning and I don't see why stations should be excluded from WP:GNG, which is the most basic notability test. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Interesting to see that Necrothesp is again pushing a circular reasoning that is not based on any policy or guideline. The Banner talk 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it incredibly hard to believe this is the one railway station in the entire world that isn't notable. See also WP:RAILOUTCOMES as others have pointed out. Smartyllama (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to keep the article because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept because in the past articles were kept etc. Do you have any policy or guideline-based arguments? The Banner talk 20:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete. Such a page is altogether useless to readers. I understand that railway stations generally get plenty of coverage, and with the conclusion that they're all notable I have no disagreement, but articles have to contain actually useful encyclopedic content, or deletion is better than keeping (assuming nobody improves things in the mean time). Of course, anyone's always free to create a new, encyclopedic article following a TNT deletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not redirect to the railway. Minor stations definitely don't deserve to be mentioned in company articles, unless they're tiny railways, e.g. Buckingham Branch Railroad mentions a station in Dillwyn, Virginia because it's the company's HQ, but Norfolk Southern Railway doesn't mention ordinary former stations. If we neither delete it nor keep it as a freestanding article, the best target would be Himatnagar (or some other locality article), because train stations are of significance to the communities where they're located and deserve to be mentioned (in passing, at least) in their articles. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, how about the page about the line the station is on like Ahmedabad railway division? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this situation. Maybe if the article were fuller, but it's mostly a "list of stations in the Ahmedabad railway division", and redirecting X to List of X isn't a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all railway stations are inherently kept. –Davey2010^Talk 12:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, again circular reasoning. It doesn't even pass GNG. The essay say that all articles need to pass GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO railway stations don't need to meet GNG, They're part of a town (which are also inherently kept per GEOLAND). –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, but stations are not cities. Also geoland states "therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable." So it must at least meet GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that but the point still stands - Cities and railway stations are generally kept. –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above claims that railroad station pages are always kept. I can see the logic in that, as railroad stations are often the anchor of a town, village, or locale in terms of travel to surrounding or distant destinations. Since they footprint the "way out", even smaller stations (and maybe especially smaller stations) attain notability by mere existence. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn, so you are arguing that it should be kept despite failing WP:GNG? Also, the article could have easily been merged into an article of the line the station is on. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This idea that stations are automatically notable just for existing is absolutely preposterous. None of the sources have substantive information about this platform in particular and are rather about the line more generally, failing to pass GNG. Google maps shows how little infrastructure this site has, being more of a stop than an actual station, and this cannot be assumed notable. These keep arguments based on inherent notability are not based on policy. Reywas92^Talk 20:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep or Merge all current and former permanent heavy-rail stations that verifiably exist or existed are indeed notable per long-standing precedent (and for good reason that have been repeatedly explained by others). However that doesn't mean that every railway station needs a standalone article, where we don't presently have enough information to sustain a standalone article the information we do have should be merged and redirected to a suitable location (most commonly the article about the line it is on). Deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Negligible coverage independent of rail line. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP consensus wisely decided long ago that all rail stations are notable. This ensures thousands of editors don't waste there time and energy fleshing out and debating the retention of articles on the tens of thousands of stations when editors efforts are much better spent on creating new articles and improving existing ones. For this and most stations, it's impossible for in depth coverage like extensive government reports and budgets to not exist.Oakshade (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mind to give evidence of the vote on that? And give details about the policies and/or guidelines that decision is based on? The Banner talk 17:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The evidence is WP:Consensus, which is the primary deciding policy, through almost 15 years of regular consensus-based editing of retaining rail stations. Except for the occasional merging of rail-related stops like tram stops, there is zero evidence of consensus showing opposite. Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there is consensus, why is this article on AfD? Maybe there is less consensus than you claim... The Banner talk 21:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        One AfD does not all negate the almost 15 years of consensus, especially if that AfD fails, which it appears this one will. The rareness of just the starting AfDs of stations, especially in proportion to the amount of station articles, further demonstrates consensus. Occasionaly an editor who is not familiar with the consensus on stations will throw one up for Afd and in all of those few cases, except for articles like tram stops, the articles are retained. Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, you can deny what you want but even at this moment there are two stations at AfD. And it is likely that there are more to follow. Making your "consensus" more and more a dream. The Banner talk 22:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, not denying almost 15 years of WP:CONSENSUS. And the second AfD on a station was just started by the exact same editor as the initiator of this AfD.Oakshade (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Oakshade, in addition, you could very well merge the rail stations. These short stubs don't particularly give the user information that a single article can't.
        
        Also, it's circular reasoning I see here as everyone seems to quote that one article rather than point out the relevant policy why it should be kept. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You and other editors asking that question of all the 'Keep' editors shows that all of them, without quoting and arguing chapter-and-verse-guidelines and policies back to you, believe that this is one of the WP:COMMON exceptions. Remember, the "ignore all rules" pillar of the site is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and allows things like this lonely page to exist. The reading public is better for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, that is why I am questioning baseless circular reasoning. The Banner talk 19:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Contrary to claims made above, not all rail stations are presumptively notable. But there has been a rough consensus that stations serving heavy rail lines are. As far as I can tell that applies here. That said the article is in very poor shape. Article quality does matter and this came very close to an IAR exception and getting a delete vote from me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. No substantial coverage in reliable sources, little to say. Contrary to the assertions above, no community-adopted policy or guideline establishes that all railway stations are notable. Sandstein 09:25, 6 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore J. Narozanick[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Did a google search and did not find a lot of coverage outside of obituaries and primary sources GPL93 (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run of the mill local public servant, none of the sources are usable for WP:GNG since they're not secondary (with the possible exception of the New Jersey state one.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG and pursuant to WP:Memorial; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Englishtown has fewer than 2000 residents. Reading the article, he does not seem to have held any positions in local government that would ensure his notability, and he doers not seem to meet WP:GNG for any other reason. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor serving on a county board of freeholders constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but there's no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons and nowhere close to enough referencing to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Northeast Conference Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

University conference soccer tournaments do not receive enough independent secondary coverage to be presumptively notable under WP:GNG. This is one of those tournaments: the only media I found in before searches was either from the conference itself or from one of the universities participating in the conference tournament, none of which are WP:SECONDARY. I'm happy with a general redirect and I will withdraw if independent secondary coverage of the entire tournament is shown (not just the final.) SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to find any signifcant secondary coverage of the subject in reliable sources in my search so it would meet WP:GNG. References in article go as: passing mention, WP:PRIMARY and another WP:PRIMARY, coming from the NorthEast Conference itself. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Routine games for a non-major conference do not have a presumption of notability and I do not see substantive media coverage. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 5 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Boger[edit]

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

Frankly, this may have been a candidate for BLP-PROD but in deference to the very old age of the page I'll run as an AFD. There's no credible evidence of the subject's notability and appears to fail WP:GNG pretty clearly. Zero real cites on the page and Google News turns up zero credible independent sources about the subject (rather than quotes from the subject and mentions in passing). Given the page's age I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not seeing it. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep. No significant coverage found this is independent of his companies, although he gets quite a few mentions in the context of those companies. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Changed to weak keep in light of the sources identified below. I'm not totally convinced yet, but am erring on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has sustained coverage (including coverage of the coverage - e.g. Globes and Haaretz covering Washington Post's placement of Boger on the cover - and on the way doing INDEPTH coverage themselves in 2007). WaPo covered him a few times - 2015, 2003, 2007. And there's quite a bit more - this is a serial entrepreneur with coverage spanning some two decades. Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WaPo isn’t enough, there has to be actual profiles on him as the businessman. Trillfendi (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, what is needed is significant accomplishment and WP:SIGCOV - which need not be a profile. SIGCOV in sentences and paragraphs can suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources including Washington Post: Business Rx: Will this maker of virtual reality goggles be able to see its path to growth? and CBS News (national) coverage of his role at Sensics: Scientists Develop Brain-Wave Binoculars support notability. there are lots more in searches. And the fact that he is a "serial entrepreneur" who has led 4 bluelinked tech firms is prima facie evidence of notability. Page, which lacked even a Reflist when brought to AfD, needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Sources offered above are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. For example, the WaPo piece is a pitch from Boger:

With advances in technology and mass-produced, high-quality displays now much more affordable because of the proliferation of smart phones, Boger saw new opportunities for Sensics.

"We are exploring new applications in the gaming industry. We partnered with a company called Razer, a global leader in products for gamers, to create virtual reality headsets."

Etc. Just a promotional CV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about him in WP:RS, from which I have just sourced details of his BIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, 2011 wasn't so long ag... what, eight years already? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:NoCOBOL, while is a very new editor with few edits - I have no idea what his comment means.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet the GNG. I'm seeing passing mentions and some interviews of him promoting his company's products, but that's what I expect from any company's chief marketing officer.Sandals1 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sandals1 is an editor with a highly unusual editing record, and a talk page dominated by sockpuppet investigations. I have not looked beyond the talk page, Sandals1's talk page. But it is odd to have 2 editors with such unusual editing records show up at an obscure AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual to be accused of being a sockpuppet twice after only 5 edits, but nothing came of either of those unjustified allegations (both from the same editor).Sandals1 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a duck to me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV. The articles I read either talked about his company and mentioned him in relation to that company or talked to him about his company. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see the significant independent coverage of him that I believe is needed to show he meets WP:GNG. He appears in the press in his role of marketing his company's products, but that's not about him. According to the Haaretz article both of the companies he founded went out of business. The claim that he was a founder of Oblicore (which I found in one article) is not supported by any documentation I can find. In fact, it is contradicted by both Bloomberg and Network World.[3] As marketing chief it's not surprising he's interviewed, but it's in line with his job and not because he's individually notable. The phrase "serial entrepreneur" is present in several articles in both English and Hebrew because I suspect that's part of his pitch (it's an odd phrase for a variety of reporters from different media and countries to all use). Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pair Of Dice Paradise[edit]

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

Video podcast has not been the subject of multiple independent published works as WP:WEBCRIT requires, and the article sources are their own videos and forum postings. I'm unable to find any published coverage beyond one 2015 Breitbart article quoting Pair of Dice's review of Trump: The Game. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My BEFORE produced similar results to that of Lord Belbury. The subject of this article does not pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanju clan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A creation of WALTHAM2, who unfortunately pretty much transcribed stuff written by the unreliable H. A. Rose. It certainly is a last name but I can't find anything that would cause this article to meet GNG. Sitush (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. samee converse 23:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica Open NY Golf Tournament[edit]

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

Despite its name, the article relates to a golf Pro–am event in New York. The event was held just once in 2014 although an event was planned for 2015. There are many pro-ams around the world each week and these events are not generally regarded as notable enough for articles, having purely local interest. There seems to be nothing which would indicate that this event was anything out of the ordinary for a pro-am. The article was most likely created to advertise the event. Nigej (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it certainly maybe true that there are "many pro-ams held each week", however, this event was attended both by the current Jamaican Prime Minister (Andrew Holness) and by US Congressman Yvette Clarke. I will add media today showing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmodeste (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not many, but I was thinking of it more as a golf event. Nigej (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable golf event....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, also reads somewhat promotionally for a tournament that was held once and has been defunct five years. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 29 January 2019 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Griot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. - There isn't multiple sources for this subject. Currently the article is also unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple such sources, e.g. Allmusic, Jazz Times, Billboard. Also reviewed in Schwann Inside Jazz & Classical. --Michig (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See above. It's a notable work by an incredibly—and indisputably—notable musician. XF641D9K (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability clearly established by @Michig:'s sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added information from the sources listed by Michig. The article now meets WP:NALBUM criterion 1. EddieHugh (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of European saints[edit]

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

This list has several problems with it. It claims to be an exhaustive list not only of those saints that have been born in what is now Europe but also those who have visited Europe. I cannot see a purpose for this list other than cruft. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Place the Saints project banner on the talk page. There are a number of saints-by-region lists, none of which have gone through AfD. We should give this AfD time to season, bring it back in a year. Tag it up to highlight the need for sourcing, discuss some options to eliminate the cruftiness, options that could serve as WP:Saints list guidance. If this list was limited to saints born or died in Europe, would that be a keep? -- Paleorthid (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As is the list makes no distinction between those who are born in Europe and those who have visited at any one point. The list is wholly unsourced, meaning it would take longer to construct such a list by paring this list down than it would be to blow this list up completely and start from scratch. We have smaller sublists which are quite useful, for individual countries like France and Italy. The reality is that a great majority of the saints would fall in a 'Saints born in Europe' Category, which would hinder the usefulness of such a list. Salvaging it was my first thought but then I realized it would be more work to salvage than to AFD this, due to how it's been constructed. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue. Saints should be listed on Wikipedia, and there are too many of them to list in one article, so decisions have to be made about how to divide up such lists. The place to make such decisions, which affect lots of articles, is not a deletion discussion for one article. WP:WikiProject Religion or Talk:List of Saints would be much better places. I would however point out that non-Christians, and non-Catholic Christians, also have saints, so any article titles should reflect which religion or denomination they are about. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTPEOPLE. European saints are discussed as a set in sources - e.g. [4][5][6]. Inclusion criteria (specifically whether visiting Europe (with or without performing a saintly activity) is sufficient - a side issue which probably doesn't affect all that many (definitely not the pre-modern ones)) - is an issue for the talk page, not AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blow it up. Entirely unsourced in the article, and entries (Princess Olga Paley) fail verification. Bernard Vũ Văn Duệ has no clear tie to Europe. Almost everything on List of saints would fall here. None of Icewhiz's references suggest to me that having a "European saints" page (as opposed to per-country pages) is useful or required by how the topic is covered in sources - the references talk about saints of countries in Europe (i.e. saints of Scotland), not describing the saints as "European saints". His third ref talks of the "strong bond" between saints and countries. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 1 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Hayden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail standards for WP:Bio, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NACTOR. A quick Google search returns only trivial mentions of subject. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable (per WP:NMUSICIAN) enough musician to meet WP:NMUSIC, and not a notable enough figure to meet WP:GNG; both issues stem from a lack of coverage in quality sources. No substantive changes from the last AfD, which resulted in a deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deja vu. Could this be a recreation of the previously deleted article, or something very close to it? --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was tempted to suggest dratify at first, but on closer look, subject isn't notable enough. Sources seem to only be local, and even those are scarce. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:05, 1 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theory and Event[edit]

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

Although published by a reputed university press, I cannot find anything that supports notability: not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. [7] is an independent source but it mentions it only trivially, in a listing of a recent "explosion in political theory journal titles". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Another non-detailed and unselective listing: the Australian Political Science Association ranks it as "B class", which means above the median but not top 20%, among the 606 political science journals they ranked in 2016 [8]. Although labeled as an online or electronic journal, this one is perhaps unusual among that class of journals as it is not open access; see [9] (mostly about a different journal) where this issue comes up. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it easily meets my Trap Adventure 2 test. Used as a reference in Reading Ranciere: Critical Dissensus, Handbook of Political Theory, Kierkegaard and Political Theory and others. - Alexis Jazz 19:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo, you found me here from Commons. I don't know why you think that a Pokémon test applies here, but WP clearly does things differently than Commons (as you so kindly explained to me over there). Here, a handful of citations, which are to be expected, are not enough to establish notability. Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG (or, for an easier way for journals to become notable, WP:NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some searching (see above) I found too little sourcing that I could use to say anything about it beyond it being a middle-of-the-road political science journal. A comment at an online forum [10] that it's "Only for Straussian-friendly (RoP) or continental/pomo stuff" was intriguing, but not a reliable source, and still not enough to say anything that would make it stand out among journals. So it doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG (the sources we have are not in-depth), and it also doesn't appear to pass WP:NJournals (we don't have evidence that it is particularly influential, well-cited, or historically significant). GNG gives a clearer reason for why we are unable to cover this topic, but NJournals tells us that it will not do much harm to the encyclopedia to omit it. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merely having published things that other publications have cited is not, by itself, enough to make the journal notable. We need to have sources talking about the journal itself — why it was founded, etc. I'd support redirecting it to Johns Hopkins University Press and giving it a sentence or two there if some more sources turned up. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2019 (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 Underwear. Opinions are split, but there seems sufficient consensus to pick this option as a compromise that will satisfy the other parties. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going commando[edit]

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

Following a discussion on the talkpage, a few editors seem to think an AfD might be appropriate for this page. I think the primary rationales for deletion would be 1) WP:NOTDICTIONARY as this article seems to primarily give definition to a slang term, 2) WP:NOTABILITY as there are basically no RS's which cover this topic as a stand-alone subject, and 3) the talkpage seems to entirely dedicated to debates surrounding the addition of gratuitous offensive images. NickCT (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nom. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Weak Keep Very very neutral, whilst the article is (almost) little more then a dictionary entry and does contain some interesting snippets (such as health issues), which indicate this may be slightly more then just a slang term.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - Are there really any RS out there that cover "the medical benefits of going commando" as an independent subject? NickCT (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it is clear that [[11]], that its a claim out there [[12]]. This tells me there may (as I said "slightly") be notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Men's Health source is sorta RS, but the primary subject seems to be Charles Barkley, not the act of going commando.

Regardless, b/c something is a legitimate (or illegitimate) health concern doesn't really seem like a standard for inclusion. Wearing tights shoes could have health implications. Should "loose shoe" be an article? NickCT (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It that a common slang term? The point it seems to me (and this is leaning me towards keep now I have to say) that this is a real and genuine modern term, phrase, slang word or whatever else you might wish to call, it is clear it is a bit more then just a slang term. whoes cultural impact is widely reported from both medical and social perspectives. Sorry but I have just argued myself into a keep vote.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a "real and genuine" slang term, but WP:NOTDICTIONARY says that that's not justification for inclusion. I don't see wide reporting. I can't find a single work that deals with it as a stand-alone topic. Can you? NickCT (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is this: electric vehicle can describe the purpose and benefits of electric cars. But what if they actually increase consumption of rare earths for batteries? What if they're problematic to dispose of, and increase use of coal fired power plants? Should we have not electric vehicle to describe that? (Anti-Electric, while a good band name, is even better as a 1940s superhero). It's a kind of POV fork. Well, it is a pov fork. Hence the preferred place for all that is Electric vehicle#Advantages and disadvantages of EVs. The best place to describe why you would or would not wear undergarments is undergarment. There's other content about military lore and kilts and such that should be spun off to the appropriate articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: - Is that a rationale to delete? If so, could you add *'''Delete''' - to the front of your comment? NickCT (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said this is not a made up term or article title to describe something, this is an actual cultural thing that has been written about, in a number of ways [[13]], [[14]].Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: - I'm not arguing that it's a made up term. You provided one source that's primary topic is Richard Madeley, and one that's about Men's Underwear. Again, do you see any sources that deals with this as an independent topic. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As in the ones disusing its heath benefits [[15]], [[16]], [[17]]?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it was not a reply to you anyway, but to another user.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Ok..... So here's the thing; we seem to agree that references talking about the health benefits of X don't demonstrate that X is an independently notable subject (e.g. "loose shoes"). I think we also agree that something being slang, isn't rationale for inclusion.

The way I see it, you're combining two non-rationales for inclusion, to somehow create a rationale for inclusion. That does not compute...

Sorry for replying to the wrong post... NickCT (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new glossary of related undergarment fashion terms including muffin top, camel toe, buttock cleavage, wedgie, desnuda, male bra, men's underwear index, and several similar ones. They're dictionary definitions, with just a smidgen of encyclopedic content that goes beyond a definition, and that smidgen would fit in a list of terms. A reliable etymology is encyclopedic; a collection of early sightings and inexpert speculation, folk etymology, about where a term might have come from, is worse than nothing. It's not even equivalent to "it is unknown where this term originated according to experts". Merge to undergarment would also work. If we don't merge, then delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please allow RFC on nude photos in Going commando to run until ready to close and consensus is established, and preserve that discussion. Userfy if no home is found. My main reason for caring about this topic is the precedent it sets regarding WP:SHOCK and WP:GRATUITOUS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDICK, I mean NOTDICDEF, seems very appropriate: delete. As for the pictures--I find it interesting that the history suggests that it's always women going commando. Someone might say it's just always men adding pictures of vaginas, of course, but that's crazy. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there have been no images of vaginas associated with this topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to Google ngram viewer results and decent number of non-English wikipedias which have this article... if you delete it, don't be surprised if in five years someone translates it from another language into English.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Ngram Viewer shows me a minuscule number of hits. As for those other-language Wikipedias, I looked at the Japanese-language article, titled Nõpan. It's partly about the odd phenomenon of nõpan kissa (see the English article No-pan kissa) and nõpan shabushabu (having the same relationship to regular shabu-shabu restaurants as nõpan kissa had to regular cafés), partly a list of celebs who claim, or are claimed, not to wear undies. Shall we look at the other articles too? -- Hoary (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10 sources below:
1. The Pleasures of Testicles: A Celebration and Exploration of All Things Balls by James L. Riedy
2. "Do Commandos Go Commando?" from Slate
3. "Gynaecologist reveals why women should always go without undies" from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney)
4. "The seven surprising benefits of sleeping naked" from The Daily Telegraph (London)
5. "Should You Be Wearing Underwear With Your Workout Leggings?" from HuffPost
6. "The Case for Going Commando, According to a Gynecologist" from Health
7. "‘I Went Commando for a Week—Here’s What It Was Like’" and "The Right Way to Go Commando" from Women's Health
8. "Benefits and Precautions of Not Wearing Underwear" from Healthline
9. "Is It OK Not to Wear Underwear When You Work Out?" from Shape
10. "The Reason Why Sleeping Without Underwear Might Be a Great Idea" from Glamour
— Newslinger talk 20:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of every one of these articles is the pros and cons of underwear. Flammable and nonflammable both redirect Combustibility and flammability for the same reason that both the pros and the cons of electric vehicles are in the same article. Anything else is a POV fork. The term "going commando" itself is premised on underwear as normative and no underwear as deviant, even though we have in that very article examples of cultures or garments or contexts where no underwear is the norm. The systemic bias inherent in the term is a whole other reason to merge it into underwear, or else a list of similar terms. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The term "going commando" itself is premised on underwear as normative and no underwear as deviant" is an interesting argument, but I don't consider that a reason for deletion, as the Going commando article doesn't frame the practice as deviant, or suffer from any other neutrality issues to be considered a POV fork. If you take issue with the name of the article, you can request to move it, but "going commando" is almost certainly the common name of this practice. "Going commando" gets enough coverage in sources that deal exclusively with this topic (and not anything else related to underwear) that it deserves its own article. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think keeping the article totally contravenes the notability guidelines. We could justify having such an article, if we wanted. But "this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page", as notability says. There are several reasons why we're better off without it, for the same reasons we're better off without stand alone articles on nonflammablity or the disadvantages of electric cars. In a lot of ways, going commando is a coat rack for several unrelated ideas, like whether women should wear anything under their yoga pants or why frog men don't wear underwear or whether that's hot or not. Kind of a grab bag of things relevant elsewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added content from some of these sources into Going commando § Usage, benefits, and drawbacks. The "Etymology" section is now only a fraction of the article's content, so WP:NOTDICTIONARY/WP:DICDEF is no longer applicable. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's clear that while this article is in relatively poor shape, the topic of going without underwear is a notable one that has been discussed in many reliable sources. It's probable that "going commando" is the most common name for it, but that is not really relevant to this discussion. Also not relevant is what, if any, image(s) the article should have as that is a matter for the talk page (and that discussion seems to have been sidetracked by those with strong opinions about images of nudity rather than the topic at hand). If this was merged anywhere then undergarment is the only logical choice but that article already has several sub-articles that are splitout for length reasons and so all that would be appropriate about this topic there is a short paragraph at most with a link to this sub-article. That the article needs improvement is also not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thryduulf: - re "the topic of going without underwear is a notable one that has been discussed in many reliable sources" - Not sure that's true. I still challenge anyone to provide a single source that discusses "going commando" as a standalone, independent topic. Sources like this one address a fashion topic (i.e. flares) "directly and in detail", which is the foundation of notability. I've yet to see a source that really discusses "going commando" as a primary topic. There are bunch of sources with subjects like "Person X goes commando" or "Health can be improved by going commando", but those are giving the topic indirect rather than direct coverage. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:SIGCOV gives a pretty vague definition of "significant coverage", but nothing in the guideline requires a source to cover all aspects of a topic to be considered "direct" coverage of the topic. The 9 articles I listed above (disregarding #1, which is a book) are primarily focused on the topic of "going commando", and the coverage is detailed. — Newslinger talk 17:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @Newslinger: - The primary topic of 2 seems to be commandos. The primary topic of most of the others seems to be health. An article titled "Loose fitting hats prevent migraines" does not make "loose fitting hats" an independently notable subject. Obviously. NickCT (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  re "requires a source to cover all aspects" - Sure, there's no requirement, but I think it's pretty obvious that a source discussing a topic "directly and in detail" is going to discuss more than one aspect of that topic. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  A source can provide significant coverage of more than one topic, and in my opinion, the listed sources all provide significant coverage of "going commando". Loose-fitting hats aren't really discussed by reliable sources in this way, but extra depth shoes and non-restrictive, close-fitting socks do have their own articles. — Newslinger talk 17:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I think the definition of "direct" basically means "single topic". If I'm talking to you "directly", the inference is that I'm talking only to or primarily to you. If I start talking to multiple people, the conversation is no longer "direct".
  
  Glancing at your examples, it's not clear to me Diabetic shoes are notable. I might support a deletion there if it can't be better sourced.
  
  Here's an RS discussing health problems related to tight fitting shoes. If I could provide you with more RS like this, you'd say "loose fitting shoe" should be a topic? NickCT (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Common counterexamples of sources that provide significant coverage of multiple topics include articles on both a company and its executive (example: Apple Inc. and Mike Markkula), both a song and its artist (example: "The Story of Adidon" and Pusha T), and both a substance and its health effects (example: asbestos and mesothelioma). The fact that a source covers the health impact of "going commando" doesn't preclude it from providing significant coverage of "going commando". The primary topic guideline applies to article naming, and not to notability. Unlike the sources on "going commando", the linked article doesn't even mention the subject in question (loose-fitting shoes). — Newslinger talk 04:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  So take your Mike Markkula example and look at the NYT piece that's used as reference in that article. That's a clear example of "direct coverage". It's a high quality RS that is examing multiple aspects of a single subject (i.e. Mike). That's a strong indication of notability, and its the type of reference that doesn't exist for "going commando". Even if asbestos didn't cause mesothelioma, both subjects would likely be independently notable. In other words, there would likely be RS talking about asbestos, a common building material, even if it didn't have health risks. It's not clear that "going commando" has RS outside its health issues.
  
  re "doesn't preclude it from providing significant coverage of "going commando" - If by "significant coverage" you mean "direct coverage" (which I think is how WP thinks about the term), then I think it does. People reading articles titled "Health impact of X" are probably reading b/c they're interested in health, not b/c they're interested in X. Health is the topic or subject that is being directly covered. Not X.
  
  re "The primary topic guideline applies to article naming" - Yeah. Granted. I was using "primary topic" in the non-WP sense of the term. Maybe I should have said "primary subject" (i.e. the subject that the RS article is mainly about). NickCT (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  NickCT, based on too many years of hanging out at WT:N, "direct" means "actually about the topic of the article". So, to extend the example above, diabetic shoes become notable when someone writes about diabetic shoes (e.g., what PMID 29371890 calls "medical-grade footwear"), but not when someone writes about shoes, or diabetes, or even the surprising number of people with diabetes who are wearing the wrong size of regular shoes. Similarly, a "Foundation for the Promotion of Diabetic Shoes" would become notable when someone writes about the foundation (e.g., founding, revenue, purpose, activities, people involved), and not about their cause (i.e., diabetic shoes). In the instant case, a source that is "directly" about going commando would actually write about the who/what/when/where/why/how of "going commando". An article claiming that people should sleep in the nude is not actually about "going commando" AIUI, and the ones making health claims aren't reliable sources for medical content. When I look through the titles given above, most of them are either non-WP:MEDRS sources making medical claims (so unusable for their primary content, although I suppose they might be reliable for ancillary information, such as the number of people who practice this) or articles about nudity (so unusable because off-topic). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9 of the 10 sources (all except the last one) refer to the practice as "going commando". While some of the claims made in the sources may fall under WP:MEDRS, some of them don't (e.g. comfort and chafing). — Newslinger talk 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @Newslinger: - Refer to, maybe. Give direct coverage, no. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @WhatamIdoing: - I concur with all of your comments. NickCT (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a suitable article, such as Underwear. One of the problems I've had while looking for sources is that there is nobody talking about this "directly and in detail". I could find a few etymology claims (none authoritative) that might interest a dictionary, but I found no serious consideration of a definition. What counts as "going commando"? If underwear simply did not exist in your culture (e.g., approximately everyone before the 13th century), did you "go commando", or was that something different? Is not wearing underwear actually "going commando" if you're not supposed to wear underwear in that situation (e.g., swimming) or if it's unclear whether underwear-wearing is typical (e.g., sleeping)? Is there a difference between a university student not wearing underwear under his jeans because he thinks it's sexy, and a non-verbal girl with sensory processing problems refusing to wear not just underwear, but also any type of leggings or pants? If there were any decent sources talking about this concept "directly and in detail", then I really ought to be able to answer such basic questions. And, you know, if "going commando" is actually a synonym for "not wearing underwear" (which I doubt, but which some past contributors to the article assumed, and there are no academic sources to determine which POV is correct here), then the article title is inappropriately slangy for an encyclopedia... and we still might decide that Non-use of underwear ought to be merged into Underwear, as a very closely related subtopic, about which we can't say much more than "Some folks don't wear underwear as often as others, and maybe the most common slang name came from soldiers in hot weather".
In terms of developing encyclopedic content on the subject, this US-based poll might make an interesting source for prevalence (although difficult to interpret: How do you report percentages of people doing something, when more than a third of respondents chose "I don't know what that means"?), which is more encyclopedic than one person's recollection of the behavior in a bar during a war, which is the level of information that we're currently presenting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the poll results to the article. — Newslinger talk 09:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:DICDEF / WP:TNT. Mostly original research based on mentions in the media, plus strange ideas that wearing pajamas or swimwear is "going commando". --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, or failing that merge into Underwear; the few things here that are not strict dictionary definitions or random etymology are WP:TRIVIA and wouldn't belong in a completed article. With that in mind, there's no valid article here and no indication that the title could ever support one. Regarding some of the comments above, note that none of them actually answer this objection or provide any policy-based reason to keep - things like Google ngrams aren't a reason to ignore WP:DICDEF (any common word or term will logically have reasonable presence, but the whole point of DICDEF is that that doesn't support an article.) Similarly, sources that do nothing but elaborate on the dictionary definition or which only provide trivia are not enough to support an article. --Aquillion (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the very small amount of encyc material into Underwear or similar. Endorse arguments of WhatamIdoing and others, most content falls foul of WP:DICDEF, much is WP:OR or trivia. This is like having an article about a neologistic, slangy term for NOT wearing socks. Neither the term nor the practice seems sufficiently defined, distinct or notable to warrant an article.Pincrete (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep And improve per previous "Keep" votes. Notable topic, plenty of RS cites. And, for heaven's sake, add a photo! --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tillman, most people wear underwear; some people don't. For most of the latter, most of the time, the underwear or lack thereof is I believe hidden by outerwear: a skirt, jeans, whatever. Do you want photos of people wearing skirts or jeans (etc) and allegedly wearing nothing beneath? Or do you want "upskirt"/"upkilt" photos? -- Hoary (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photo debate is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not only would a photo of someone who says they are not wearing underwear, but looks just like anyone who is, fail our basic Verifiability test, it would be silly. I guess I will (at some point) look for a RS that says "Going Commando" is a form of exhibitionism. OK, how about right now:

Here's a video of 5 ladies throwing their panties at the videographer. Still weak on verifiablity. What if they just had an extra pair of panties stashed?
Google isn't finding a RS for "Going Commando" = exhibitionism. Just some porn sites. So maybe it isn't (as another editor argued. Huh. Back to what I'm supposed to be doing, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or alternatively merge to Underwear. I think there is enough to ring the N bell, but not by a wide margin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2019 (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: Article was speedily deleted as A7/G11 (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Dhairya Roy[edit]

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

Article is about a civil servant lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. At the time of nomination, there are 10 sources provided but this is misleading. Several of the sources are the same story, but from different outlets. And none of them represent significant coverage. In most cases, the article is just quoting Roy. The OPINDIA article is one where Roy is the author of the article. The most substantial coverage of Roy in the provided sources is from this article, and duplicate article. The article contains the sentence "The project management office is headed by Dhairya Roy, Mungantiwar's aide." which is the sum of coverage about Roy. My own searches do not find any significant independent coverage about Roy. Whpq (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Supplies[edit]

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

This company lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article shows two references but it is actually the same reference used twice. There is a claim that this is the largest home brewing company in America, but the reference provided actually states "Midwest is among the largest U.S. suppliers", and not the largest as claimed. The article is behind a paywall but for some reason, it lets you have a short look before throwing up the pay wall. A search for more sources finds a few reviews of their home brewing kit (This Wired review is the most substantial), but nothing about the company. Whpq (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an advertisement. Britishfinance (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. I found a (very) passing mention here: [18], but the focus is on a sister company, Northern Brewer, which the article terned "the nation's largest home-brewing supplier" (not Midwest, in other words). Other passing mentions: Seattle Times; BizJounral (MN); and, Star Tribune still don't amount to WP:SIGCOV in terms of the company itself as the focus is on the acquisition of sister companies, including Midwest, by ABInBev in 2016, rather than in-depth coverage of the company itself. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:10, 1 February 2019 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blink Charging[edit]

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

Available sources seem to be primarily press releases, maybe the occasional WP:ROUTINE coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dear god it's press release galore!, They've clearly gone on a spending spree!, I can't find anything but press releases - admittedly I'd given up after the second page. Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:52, 5 February 2019 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael George DeSombre[edit]

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

Can't see any credible claim of notability; sources not strong enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There's maybe an argument to be made that individuals who have donated significant amounts of money to political campaigns should be considered notable, but ultimately this article is short of GNG and NBIO while being full of cruft. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject is one of the most prominent American expatriates in Hong Kong, and was named in numerous media reports as a potential nominee (requiring Senate confirmation) in the Trump Administration. In addition, he is the founding president of a global organization that represents nine million American expatriates around the world. _signed,magahk2020 ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The subject has received WP:SIGCOV in major media including Washington Post and South China Morning Post and for his work in politics. His work in law is extensively covered in the trade press. As a political and charity leader in Hong Kong including the subject would be consistent with entries under Category:American expatriates in Hong Kong. Sources cited in this article are Reliable and Independent of the Subject. _signed,magahk2020

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 Kunle Afolayan. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Effects Pictures[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as does not seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH at this time as far as I can tell. For example, Google News shows only mentions of the company itself despite good coverage of its films and certain directors. If anyone identifies substancial coverage in reliable sources, please ping me, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Leaning keep, haven't looked at these[19] yet. Because of the business, it is hard to separate the company, CEO/producer/director/actor, movies,… so this article[20] is talking about many aspects of the company. I was looking at Monkeypaw Productions as an example of a production company. Also, the article could be renamed just "Golden Effects" with redirects for the distribution "Pictures", production "Studio", and "Services". Or just leave as Pictures with the others redirecting. StrayBolt (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Atlantic306: this source, states Golden Effect Pictures is "10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s, 2000s", I have also found additional sources, [21] and [22]. There are certainly claims to notability here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much directly about the company that isn't Afolayan's own words in interview. We need at least two sources each with at leat one long paragraph or two directly about the company that is not just Afolayan talking, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being labeled "10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s, 2000s" would suggest notability, perhaps Cunard (talk · contribs) can find additional sources. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it isn't in the "10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s, 2000s", it is perhaps a new one to replace the old. StrayBolt (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find significant coverage about Golden Effects Pictures in my searches for sources. I oppose deletion since an alternative to deletion per WP:PRESERVE is to merge to the article of Golden Effects Pictures's founder Kunle Afolayan.
Cunard (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge changing to merge as above, as it can be included there and if it becomes notable in the future it can be spun out then, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Business and Emerging Markets[edit]

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

Non-notable journal, tagged for notability for more than 4 years. Not a single incoming link either. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2019 (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 MNC Vision. Sandstein 09:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top TV (Indonesia)[edit]

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

Article has been 'notability' tagged since 2011. After looking, I could find no secondary coverage of this. Subject looks to fail WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNC Vision Simply a pared-down and defunct 'skinny bundle' version of MNC Vision's main satellite service. It's a sentence there, at most. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirecting here is pointless since MNC Vision does not mention Top TV at all, and thus the redirect would fail WP:RDEL Criteria 10 because "the target article contains virtually no information on the subject". The subject fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to find in my search, and considering there are no references in the article, it also fails WP:V, since nothing there is verifiable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the mention. Nate • (chatter) 00:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movandi[edit]

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

non notable small company in its early stages; minor awards only, no significant independent references. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all coverage appears to be aspirational business press, nothing that meets WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meflyn Anwana[edit]

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

Promotional article from a now blocked sock. Subject does not appear to be notable enough, and cannot find in-depth independent coverage. Edwardx (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Edwardx that the subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable sources. Her appointment as special assistant to a governor does not make her reliable for stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:04, 30 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Devine[edit]

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

Fails notability by WP:NGRIDIRON. Player has played no professional games in a top level club. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is another college football player of the same name at University of Virginia. It may be difficult to pick out the proper results with blanket search engines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to this article, he was never higher than third string at Marshall U in college. That points toward a failure to achieve notability in the football world, at least for inclusion in this encyclopedia. He may have achieved notability for other means but I cannot find it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure to pass WP:NGRIDIRON is an inclusionary standard, so the AfD can only succeed if the player also fails to satisfy WP:GNG. In this case, my searches turn up no significant coverage of the type required, just passing mentions. Cbl62 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox Kashmir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The external links are broken. The references either show 'page not found' or do not have direct mention of "The Vox Kashmir". The FB page is inactive, again not meeting WP:GNG in any way.

(I thought this was a WP:HOAX for a moment going through the YouTube channel and an empty wordpress website with the same name.) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:NWEB. WP:PROMO article created by a WP:SPA. Absolute lack of coverage in reliable media that talks about the subject in detail. minor citations is all I could find, and that does not prove the notability in any way. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. I found archived versions of the two references and added them to the article. I also added an archived version of the website itself. I think that the references are now enough to establish notability. This is a good example of the importance of the Internet Archive and other online archives of vanished websites. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain, Thanks for rescuing the refs, but even these 2 sources fail to provide notability. both these articles are discussing multiple new websites run by young people are coming up and only give a short trivial coverage. WP:ORGCRITE demans significant coverage that is much more than this.

Quote by Tehelka- "A plethora of online magazines like The Vox Kashmir, The Kashmir Walla, The Parallel Post, Kashmir Currents and Kashmir Dispatch, run by youngsters, including students and young professionals, are catering to the new age, tech-savvy population with news and views on and about Kashmir."
Quote by Kashmir life- "Kashmir Currents, The Vox Kashmir, The Kashmir Walla, The Parallel Post and other websites owned by Kashmiri youth came into existence after the recent unrest from 2008-2010"- --DBigXrayᗙ 05:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note, there is currently an AFC draft submission called Draft:Media in Jammu and Kashmir. IF this submission is accepted, then Vox Kashmir can be merged into it. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewed the references rescued by Eastmain and there is still no notability here per WP:GNG which needs multiple reliable secondary sources that cover it in detail as WP:SIGCOV. Tehelka source does not contribute towards notability since it is based on what Qadri Inzaman and Haziq Qadri, the owners of The Vox Kashmir, have said. So that is a WP:PRIMARY. Meanwhile, Kashmir Life source is a passing mention of the subject, consists of 1 sentence, and a quote from Sheikh Saaliq, who ran the website at the moment. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Content claimed supported by primary sources and it fails GNG where subject info could not be verified. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:59, 6 February 2019 (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) DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Habibi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:N The given references doesn't talk about the person. It's deleted in Persian Wikipedia as well. Ladsgroup^overleg 22:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. seems to be in line with WP:ACTOR Mgbo120 (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep in mind I couldn't find any reference in Persian that directly talk about him, it's just "This movie has been dubbed to Persian and voices actors are foo and bar". Ladsgroup^overleg 12:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep. there is new strong references and sources . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expurgateagent (talk • contribs) 21:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep.Voice actors are oppressed like Iraj Nazerian and Hossein Erfani . Unfortunately people know him after they are dead Rezataghaddos (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezataghaddos (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep. references talk about him clearly and his famous for voice acting in Iranian and foreign animations, films, video games, documentaries, radio, cinema and theater, not only dubbing and this is not foo and bar. Voice acting is international art. voice actors are famous enough but not like actors or singers. Rezvanzari (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. he is famous and there is no any doubt. All of this references talking about him and his work and art in voice acting directly :

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] ^[10] ^[11] ^[12] ^[13] ^[14] ^[15] ^[16] ^[17] ^[18]

cinemapress آغار پخش انیمیشن "محمد امین (ص)" از شبکه آموزش-خبرگزاری سینمای ایران Shahr News Agency پشت صحنه دوبله انیمیشن ریو Iran News Photo Agency انیمیشن “آخر خط” ؛ میکروب ها علیه شویندگان Salam Cinema معرفی انیمیشن «رستم و سهراب»، عکس های انیمیشن، پوستر، آنونس، حواشی و ویدیو پشت صحنه آشنایی با برخی دوبلورهای ایرانی فیلم های ابر قهرمانی Borna News نامزدهای سومین جشنواره دوبله انیمیشن معرفی شدند Iranian Student News Agency انيميشن‌هاي روز جهان به نمايش درخواهد آمد GameFa News نشست فعالان حوزه انیمیشن و بازی های رایانه ای از امشب در رادیو نمایش Fars News Agency آثار 14 گروه هنرمند جوان و نخبه با موضوع مهدويت رونمايي شد Sfahan Emrooz Newspaper مصاحبه با مجید حبیبی در مورد دوبلاژ و لزوم آکادمیک شدن هنر صدابازيگري، عنوان : دوبلاژ؛ شکوهی سو به خاموشی Mehr News Agency انیمیشن "محمد امین (ص)" از شبکه آموزش پخش می‌شود Mehr News Agency صداگذاری بازی عصر پهلوانان با 35 گوینده حرفه‌ای Hooman kha (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "انیمیشن آخر خط میکروب ها علیه شویندگان". doorbin.net/news (in Persian). Retrieved 2017-01-21.
^ "گفت‌وگو با مجید حبیبی نویسنده کتاب صدابازیگر". vananews (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-22.
^ "انتقاد یک دوبلور از وضعیت دوبله". mashreghnews.ir. Retrieved 2017-01-21.
^ "مصاحبه با مجید حبیبی در مورد دوبلاژ و لزوم آکادمیک شدن هنر صدابازیگری، دوبلاژ شکوهی سو به خاموشی". Arya News Agency (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-29.
^ "نمایش انیمیشن بچه‌خان در فرهنگ‌سرای گلستانه". fhnews (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-18.
^ "پشت صحنه دوبله انيميشن ریو". fhnews (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-18.
^ ""ماشین‌ها" نوروز از شبکه یک پخش می‌شود". Mehr News Agency (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-01.
^ "انیمیشن "ماشین‌ها" دوبله شد". Mehr News Agency (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-01.
^ "دوبله بازگشت سوپرمن". magiran (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-19.
^ ""بازگشت سوپرمن" برای تلویزیون دوبله شد". Mehr News Agency (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-01.
^ "دوبله بازگشت سوپرمن". magiran (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-19.
^ ""بازگشت سوپرمن" برای تلویزیون دوبله شد". Mehr News Agency (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-01.
^ "انیمیشن سینمایی رستم و سهراب اکران می‌شود". باشگاه خبرنگاران جوان (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-23.
^ "Rostam and Sohrab 2012". cicinema. Retrieved 2019-02-03.
^ "Battle of the Kings: Rostam & Sohrab 2012". musicman. Retrieved 2019-02-03.
^ "زورو محاكمه مي شود معیار". tiwall (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-20.
^ "زورو در نياوران محاكمه مي شود معیار". theater (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-01-20.
^ "پس از جشنواره دوبله". Cinema Daily (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-01.

keep. these are explict sources and also references i saw in his English page. i am wonder why his persian page was deleted!? that was not correct and justly. these are 4 another references that i added to his English page for a theater performance which was not mentioned in his activity record

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] And this is Shahram Mokri note about Zoro performance and voice acting of Majid Habibi in this performance ^[4] Saraomran39 (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "گزارش تصویری تیوال از نمایشنامه خوانی قرمز و دیگران". tiwall (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-05.
^ "نمایشنامه قرمز و دیگران خوانش می شود". theaterfestival (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-05.
^ "نمایشنامه خوانی قرمز و دیگران". tiwall (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-05.
^ "Shahram Makeri Note for this performance". tiwall (in Persian). Retrieved 2019-02-05.

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 programs broadcast by MSNBC. Considering there was a rebuttal of the new sources posted, and the same user who posted them also mentioned Redirect as a solution, consensus is clear. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time and Again (TV program)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2009(!), so for almost 10 years. I've looked and I can find no reliable secondary source coverage of this documentary TV program. (Even the MSNBC website seems not to mention it...) Thus, this appears to be a non-notable documentary TV program (there are quite a lot of these on TV...) which does not meet WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MSNBC It was one of the original MSNBC series in the age before cable news became what it is now and notable for that. But it was used mainly to fill time with NBC News archival programming, not much more, and once rolling news coverage happened, it just disappeared into the ether. I could probably say there's full episodes on YouTube, but that's automatically a non-notable source since they're definitely not network-uploaded (going back to the network's site circa 2000 via the Wayback would see it mentioned there, but since video footage would either be RealMedia or WMV, it's virtually unusable to a modern viewer). Nate • (chatter) 08:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Keep - there is some sourcing out there ([23], [24], [25], [26]) to establish this and satisfy WP:TVSHOW, but I'm fine with a redirect until someone wants to expand it beyond an unreferenced stub. -- Netoholic @ 17:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Look to be incidental mentions, not "in depth" coverage. I agree that a redirect is the best option in this case – I don't think there will ever be enough to justify a standalone article for this particular show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaze no Tegami[edit]

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

These single tracks within the Voice of Earth album do not meet the standards of WP:NSONGS or general notability requirements; while each of them was independently ranked on the Japanese single charts, with one reaching as high as #19, this is not sufficient to establish notability, and a search for sources which do reveal nothing - though as I cannot speak Japanese that search should be taken with a note of caution. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination includes these other tracks:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are source search links for the articles above lacking them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Natsukashii Mirai (Longing Future)

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Red Cliff (Shin-Sen)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Megumi no Ame

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – Ashita e no Sanka

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

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 Yair Lapid. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lapidomator[edit]

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

I thought about deletion as an attack page, but there are good RSs to the use of the term. Maybe the community can decide what to do about this DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody.

As DGG wrote, there were good Reliable sources for this article. I have not invented it, nor did any original research.

I wrote the article more than two months ago, and it was quite late to ask for deletion now.

Reference #17 in the article said: "Lapid amused by Lapidomator app", and stated Lapid's words: "I had a contest with the kids. They would enter, say, the word 'hummus', and I would write something, and then we would check the Lapidomator and see if it was similar." Lapid told it his followers in the social network, and also said on a different occasion that the Lapidomator wrote better than him: "I'm a little offended, because it writes as me better than I do sometimes. So that bothers me a little, but otherwise it's quite funny."

It is evident that Lapid has not made any lawsuit against the Lapidomator's creators, and the Lapidomator still generates statuses. Until now, It has generated 323,759 statuses. Here is Lapidomator's status about the English Wikipedia:

"I want to talk about the English Wikipedia.

The issue of the English Wikipedia, a problem that was a bleeding wound in the heart of the Israeli society, comes to an agreed, sane, logical, yet determined solution. Instead of succumbing to the various sectors, the state is again acting like a sovereign who stands on its own.

Today, the Knesset's committee passed a law which would abolish the English Wikipedia law. It was an unjust political law, which required government officials to be held hostage by the wheeler-dealers.

The essence of the new politics is that every time when you have to choose between what is best for you personally and what is good for the English Wikipedia, you would always choose the English Wikipedia.

The answer is that after reviewing the possibilities over and over, I could not escape the conclusion that any other treatment of the English Wikipedia meant that I was making discounts.

Violent incitement against the English Wikipedia is a direct threat to the State of Israel and we will deal with it." Dgw (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yair Lapid. This had a fairly nice burst of national level coverage in Israel (Hebrew) in 2013 - but this has mostly fell silent. The status generator (as well as the nature of Lapid's posts) is a legitimate piece of criticism of Lapid, and should be briefly summarized there. I don't think this is independently notable as I don't see continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yair Lapid per Icewhiz's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rawat caste[edit]

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

Unsourced phrase describing a caste or something different Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a caste/social group called Rawat exists, this article's content has never come close to describing that social group accurately (the latest version claiming that the group is a "confederation" of "ruling Rajput"), and has always lacked solid sources. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over applies here. utcursch | talk 15:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The job of TNT has already been done, and as of now the article is a single line stub. So, we should decide whether this topic meets GNG or not. That will also take care of the future recreations of this page. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have checked some online sources regarding the Rawat. It is variously described as a caste, clan, community, title, etc. This source has details of the Meherats, a Muslim Rajput community, reconverted Hindu members of which are known as 'Rawat Rajputs'. This article is also giving details of that community. This source labels Rawats as "make-believe Rajputs". Indeed, journals published by the University of Jodhpur – [27] & [28] – list Rawats separately from the Rajputs. Rawat is also a clan of Jats – [29], [30], [31], [32], etc.

The State series of the People of India (by Kumar Suresh Singh) contains good amount of details about the Rawats, e.g. [33], [34], [35], etc. Having said that, if I remember a comment by Sitush correctly, these State series are considered unreliable on this project. The topic is also covered in the National series of the same author – [36] – which was published by the OUP, but I am not sure regarding its reliability.

All in all, if we don't count both the State series and the National Series of the People of India (by K. S. Singh), then the subject might not meet the WP:GNG. Anyway, I will !vote after consulting regarding the reliability of the People of India series. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "national" series, published by OUP, is reliable; the "states" series, which was published by umpteen outfits and plagiarised the Raj era sources, is not. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday while mentioning Meherats, I didn't know that we already have an article about them at Merat, which is their common name. In fact, per academic sources, Rawat, Merat, Chita, & Kathat communities are actually a single group known as Mer (or Mair) – [37], [38], [39], etc. And we have articles about Mers (or Mairs) as well: Mers people & Mair caste, both of which are poorly sourced & in bad condition, just like Merat. I guess we should give details of Rawats (the Rajasthani ones), Merat, Chita, & Kathat at the Mers people, or at the Mair caste, or under some similar appropriate title, after which we should redirect the remaining relevant titles to that page.

As far as Rawat caste as a separate article is concerned, the page seems important for the clarification of all the confusing details regarding the multiple, seemingly unrelated groups which use this title, but it's hard for me to comment on its notability, as I've access to only snippet views of the sources. So I leave it to those who have access to the relevant sources, along with having knowledge of this topic. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i was initially going to suggest a merge to Merat but they appear to be a larger group who live over a number of states see here and here (i know these sources are not reliable but they show the problems that these sort of articles are facing). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2019 (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. In closing this, I have counted Emeraude's remark as almost a "delete" !vote, even though they didn't formally !vote. NOTINHERITED is a strong argument here, but clearly dosn't sway all participants to the debate. Now this AfD is closed, I hope that the information in the different articles will be reorganized along the lines suggested by Headbomb. Randykitty (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo, the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology[edit]

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

Slightly promotional page for an organization that publishes several journals in the field of electronic media. While the journals it publishes are notable (many have their own Wikipedia page), the umbrella organization that publishes them is not notable by inheritance. The sources provided have no depth whatsoever, and consist of fact checks rather than independent in-depth coverage. Notability fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Leonardo (journal) is actually more about the organisation than the journal. The organisation, not the journal is the publisher, so if the journal is notable so is the publisher. Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's not logical. "If X is notable, then so is Y" is a fallacy here on Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if your journals are notable, you are a notable publisher. A good chunk of Leonardo (journal)#History should be located at this article rather than at the journal article however.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. If your journals are notable, you are a publisher of notable journals. And, you can be a notable publisher of non-notable journals! Emeraude (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you can also be a publisher of notable journals. There are many paths to notability.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED Says "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable. For example, just because Albert Einstein was a founding member of a particular local union of the American Federation of Teachers [Local 552, Princeton Federation of Teachers] does not make that AFT local notable." Read literally, Leonardo ISAST should be assessed independently of its journals.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The primary activity of Leonardo ISAST is it's journals. That's like saying a scientist should be assessed independently of their research or contribution to science. People inherit the notability of their works, just like publishers inherit the notability of their journals and conferences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same thing-- a journal is notable because of the quality authors who publish in it, not because of its publisher. There is basically no in-depth coverage of ISAST itself, and this page was obviously created to promote it. The in-depth coverage and notability lies in the journals, and we have articles on the journals in any case. If I go with your argument, then anyone who owns a couple of notable journals is notable... which is not a desired outcome here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, a publisher is notable for the quality of its journals. I don't see a problem with that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you want to ignore NOTINHERITED, you can also say the unknown person who owns the publishing company is also notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To a point, but mere ownership of a company is a rather different than a publisher publishing of journals. I'll also point out that we have articles on both Roger Malina and Frank Malina. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Mailinas are very well known for the independent contributions to the field of art and technology, and I can find source after source after source about them that establishes their notability. Not true of ISAST.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. StrayBolt (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: in my view, a organization which publishes multiple notable journals is on that grounds notable. Notability is not inherited, yes; but, it is a cumulative effect. If it only published one notable journal, it would not have independent notability. But an organization which publishes four notable journals, I would say that should be enough for its own notability. Likewise, the fact that some of the individuals involved (its founder and some of its editors/chairs) are notable, by itself doesn't confer notability, but cumulatively adds to it. In other words, I don't think NOTINHERITED is an absolute rule; if you inherit enough notability from enough different sources, then notability can be inherited after all. SJK (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sakorn Suksriwong[edit]

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

Cannot see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Edwardx (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has appeared on Joh Jai, one of Thailand's most prominent talk shows.[40] Most news results appear to be passing mentions in relation to his work. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant independent coverage in reliable sources, although I admit I don't read Thai. I did check to see if he might be a notable academic, but his position doesn't seem to grant automatic notability. As far as his papers go, Google Scholar lists a combined total of 8 citations for all of them. Papaursa (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Stars![edit]

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

Not sure this is notable. My before search came up with only a little. I'm not familiar with WP:ANIME, but WP:VG woudn't class this as notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you cross check the 58 references used on the ja:wiki article? link for you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable as a television series that will air on multiple major Japanese TV networks. If it was a game only then it might not be considered notable, but it isn't so that's not relevant. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised that this would be nominated for deletion. Even without the anime, there's plenty of coverage about the game itself in Japanese, enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xezbeth's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Xezbeth. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources at ja:wiki need to be vetted before I could consider deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2019 (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 as a WP:G12 copyright violation. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indenor[edit]

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

This article, which has been lacking sources since its creation, appears to also lack notability in general. Researching the Indenor Company brings occasional references to its products, but no significant coverage on the company itself.

It must be mentioned that this is a relatively old company (formed sometime after 1955 according to the article, and dissolved at some unspecified point according to the mentions I could find) and so sources, if they exist, may not be available on the internet, and so this AfD should be taken with appropriate suspicion. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was copied directly over from a web page that may no longer exist. However, if you google the first part of the text you will find the article or parts of it several places, including here: http://energic.info/energic-tracteurs-motoculteurs-motobineuses-et-motofauchauses-1940-1986/energic-motoculteur-engine-manufacturers/tracteur-engines/t-m-d-enginesmoteur

I dont know if this is the original page or if they copied part of the text from wikipedia or another page, but if it is the article has since become better and incorporates pictures as well as a link to further reading.

Sources about the Indenor company may also exist in other languanges, and probably certainly in French. As for significance, I can enlighten you with the fact that Indenor was the in-house diesel engine manufacturer of Peugeot, much like Perkins is for Massey Ferguson. The difference is that Perkins was bought by MF, while Indenor was founded by its parent company Peugeot. It was never dissolved, they just phased out the name or absorbed it into the main company. It is perhaps too little mention of it in the article.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't state further about the notability of the subject, but given the disclosure here I have nominated the page for speedy deletion due to copyright violation; I ask you not to remove it unless you can provide evidence that the source you obtained the information from allowed it to be used in this manner. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is any copyright. Several other pages also use the text or parts of it. The original page appears to be gone.

Rolling Phantom (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 29 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ventress[edit]

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

BLP failing WP:GNG with zero indi third party substantial sources, let alone WP:NPEOPLE - only passing mentions or non-indi sources. A quick search finds passing mentions but nothing substantial. WP:NOTINHERITED from Galliford Try and looks WP:TOOSOON or just non-notable. Widefox; talk 12:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: High level corporate positions held, and references. Uhooep (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2019 (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 that the player meets NFOOTY Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Rodríguez Quezada[edit]

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

He has yet to play in a fully professional league. Thus he does not meet our ridiculously low inclusion criteria for sportspeople. John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I saw that Pumas Morelos currently play in the third division (not fully-pro) and assumed his appearances for them were in that same division. As he has played in the Ascenso MX he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has yet to play in a fully professional league? Fails WP:NFOOTBALL? That's apart from the 60-odd appearances in the WP:FPL-listed Liga Ascenso/Ascenso MX over a four-year spell from the 2009 Apertura to the 2013 Clausura, as verifiable from the only reference in the article, is it? Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway, he does pass WP:NFOOTBALL per source. Article needs a cleanup for GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about footballer who made 33 appearances for Pumas' second-tier affiliate (Pumas Morelos), but when I look for significant coverage in the local newspaper (La Unión - www.launion.com.mx) or Mexico's national football magazine (Medio Tiempo - www.mediotiempo.com), I cannot find anything except match reports where Rodríguez is identified in a squad list or where he is mentioned as a new signing. I've always been dubious of the claim that the Mexican second-tier is a fully-pro league, but here we should ignore that presumption of notability when there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given it's television coverage, I'm more comfortable that beginning in 2012 Ascenso MX is a fully-pro league, and Rodríguez did made 8 appearances for Pumas Morelos after the 2012 reorganization of the league. However, I still think delete is appropriate for a person making a handful (8) of appearances in a fully-pro league when there is no way to satisfy WP:GNG. There are many examples of this consensus as earlier AfDs. Jogurney (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this the same footballer as this link and was involved in this AfD? If so, it appears to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, but this isn't readily apparent from the article. Also, would this link use dmy or mdy for the birthday? That may help determine if they are the same. Jay eyem (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is the same person. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep assuming that is the case, I think this does squeak by on WP:NFOOTBALL. I've made updates that reflect that fact. Whether or not that is too accommodating of a criteria is a conversation for a different place, but the individual has played in Liga Ascenso/Ascenso MX which is listed under WP:FPL. Jay eyem (talk) 00:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL per above, as any remote amount of WP:BEFORE would have shown. Smartyllama (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually NFOOTBALL provides a presumption of notability if a footballer has played in a fully-pro league. I think the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources for a footballer who so narrowly passes the bright line of NFOOTBALL is sufficient to rebut that presumption (not to mention that the sourcing for the inclusion of Ascenso MX on WP:FPL is quite poor). Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2019 (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 deleted by RHaworth per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter[edit]

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

I don't see this app passing WP:GNG, or the parent company (which isn't mentioned in the article, only mentions the founder's connection to Harvard Medical School) passing WP:NCORP. Article is based exclusively on short articles that appear to be build around press releases/promotion - no actual significant coverage of the product. (I already removed a sentence that was making biomedical assertions with similar sources) GirthSummit _(blether) 07:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - article has been speedy deleted already as promotional. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:37, 30 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notting Hill College[edit]

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

Non-notable college. No relevant GNews hits (string: "Notting Hill College" England); article has been completely unsourced for a long while now. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a training provider, authored by a WP:SPA and subsequently developed by another. No references provided to support what is effectively a list of the firm's services and industry bodies, and searches are not finding better than associated listings. The company operates several locations in Egypt, where it has hosted training conferences ([41]), but again I am not seeing the reference evidence needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy, minor college. "Founded in 2004" is a red flag, as the British education system became chaotic around that time and non-notable colleges and academies popped up everywhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Article is clearly meant to advertise the company's services. But if policy isn't good enough, then how about guidelines, since it doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP either. Search finds basically nothing except articles about an education company with this name discovered to be operating illegally in Ghana. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boom! Boom! Deluxe[edit]

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

The Article is mostly undersourced which lacks significant impact will fail WP:NBAND guideline. Sheldybett (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAND. Maybe a case for national tour (4), but could find no good refs. Maybe move some info to Dunken Francis Mullett. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND, possibly WP:TOOSOON. There doesn't seem any point in redirecting this to Dunken Francis Mullett, as his own article and the one for his previous band Mournblade are mostly OR and completely lacking in any reliable sources. All three articles are largely the work of user "Jeremyminton", a mathematician at Cambridge University who just happens to have spent three years as an assistant to Dunken Francis at his Institute of Aikido in Auckland [42], [43]. Richard3120 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iftikhar Akbar Randhawa[edit]

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

no evidence for notablity failed electoral candidate. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vice chairman of Pak Sarzameen Party seems to be important enough in itself. -- Raziman T V (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vice chairman of a political party is not sufficient to meet WP:NPOL. We would need multiple in-depth profiles to develop an article that is more that "he exists." --Enos733 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't held an office that would establish notability through WP:NPOL and hasn't garnered significant enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. samee converse 13:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL .Note Pak Sarzameen Party was founded in 2016 and is a very minor party in Pakistan.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olakunle Churchill[edit]

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

non notable and very highly promotional. Should not have passed NPP. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete its promotional but can pass when carefully worked on and sourced. Kaizenify (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any better sources; everything I've found is simply tabloid news about his relationship with his ex-wife. A failed marriage to an actress is not an indication of notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most coverage that I can find is only about him being Tonto Dikeh's former husband, so maybe this title should be redirected to her article? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. None of the sources on Google discusses him or his company. The technology firm he founded is also not notable. Being a former husband to a notable actress doesn't make him notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - nominator has been blocked for raising bum AfD discussions. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Replogle[edit]

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

Replogle has never even been part of a regular NFL team. He has been on various practice squads and been cut from rosters before the start of the season, but never even been on the regular roster during a regular season game, let alone played in one. Clear failure of the notability guidelines for football players which are already ridiculously low John Pack Lambert (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Johnpacklambert: Did you comply with WP:BEFORE to determine whether there is sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG? Cbl62 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, virtually all the coverage I find is of a totally different Adam Replogle who is a professional surfer. So yes, there is nothing near GNG level coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about this national coverage from CBS Sports? Cbl62 (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have the inclusion standards for football players because such hype articles are so common. We should not make an exception for such hype articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feature stories in national publications such as CBS Sports are not "common" at all. In my experience, less than one percent of college players receive such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG overrides the specific notability guidelines. If someone has sufficient coverage, it does matter if they do not meet any particular specific notability guideline. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG through feature stories found and those listed in the article. Top 25 player at IU over the last 25 years certainly shows WP:IMPACT and thus supports notability as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Seems like another WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:POINT nomination from this user. Given he has a history of these dating back quite some time, might be time to escalate this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created by JPL in violation of his Topic ban, for which he has since been blocked. I suggest a speedy keep rather than a regular keep in light of this new information. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, per all above. Yet another bad/POINTY/no WP:BEFORE sports-related AfD nomination from this particular user. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the best way of looking NSPORTD to be as a restriction of the GNG,,for the purpose or eliminating encyclopedic coverage of those who receive only publicity, but not accomplishments. What countsas accomplishments in each field is subject o discussion ,but I think the interested people here consider it to consist of playin in professional football, not college football, which seems reasonable enough. In exceptional cases, The GNG can be used as a reason to over-ride this , and I'd probably accept multiple sources celebrating his has the best play in IU's 25 year history, not just one of the 25 best. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply wrong. In adopting WP:NSPORT, we were explicit that it was to be an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. This is also set forth explicitly in the introduction: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline..." Accordingly, it is sufficient that the subject pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well my view is not consensus. I am raising the the possibility of changing it by gauging sentiment. DGG ( talk ) 06

14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment if you want to re-write WP:NSPORT then the place to do that is at WP:NSPORT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2019 (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 Miss Universe New Zealand. RL0919 (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Maree Millns[edit]

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

As with Johnpacklambert, the article only source is is a press release from the organization she competed in whenever it passes or fails WP:NMODEL. Sheldybett (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for nominator @Sheldybett: If you agree with Johnpacklambert, why did you de-PROD the article? Also, what does "whenever it passes or fails WP:NMODEL" mean? Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has not yet that how much that models had significant coverage, if it had multiple sources and high importance then it passes through WP:NMODEL and if it does not then it would fail WP:NMODEL guideline becasue the article which I'm nominating is leaning towards the latter, also I do not actually agree with Johnpacklambert because I don't know that as which is agree, Sorry. Sheldybett (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She "had significant roles in multiple notable... stage performances..." WP:NMODEL, Miss Universe New Zealand and Miss Universe. I have added a couple of references. All other Miss New Zealands have pages (yeah I know it doesn't matter). If it becomes a keep may want to change the page name, as her middle name is harder to find on the internet?(talk 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe New Zealand as not WP:NMODEL as per John Pack Lambert. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete The references add to one minor human interest story and two internal documents of the competition. This in no way comes close to the multiple 3rd party coverage we need. Beauty contests do not count as "notable stage performances" so appearing in more than one does not make one default notable. That was the very clear outcome of a long discussion we had on this very matter in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe New Zealand. A functional search term as per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I’m in the minority of people on this website who believe being in a beauty pageant is not automatic notability let alone keeping an article, but if anyone cares enough they could go to Miss Universe New Zealand. She does not meet NMODEL. Trillfendi (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note the parallel merger discussion, but it is less in-depth and less conclusive than this one. Sandstein 15:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical bodies in pseudoscience and the paranormal[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Planets in science fiction. jps (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A POV fork is when a Wikipedia editor creates an article with an identical scope but advocating for a different interpretation of its subject not separate articles describing differences among other peoples opinions, even if the subject of those opinions are the same. Our articles on Christianity and Islam aren't POV forks of our article on religion. Abyssal (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this list of fictional entities be separated from all other lists of fictional entities? My only way of understanding why this list might exist is to advocate for a different level of incredulity about the existence of these fake astronomical bodies compared to other lists of fictional entities. jps (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're notable for being promoted as if they were true as opposed to science fiction, whose authors admit to inventing their characters. Abyssal (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting contention, but it actually isn't necessarily true that science fiction authors always admit that their inventions are false. See L. Ron Hubbard's work on the Scientology canon for a famous example. The lines are not clearly demarcated between A and B and, because of that, it's best that Wikipedia not be deciding who is being honest when they say that they think that their proposed astronomical idea is correct and who is being dishonest. It's very hard to get science fiction authors on the record confirming that they don't think any one particular invention is real or not. jps (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this. There is a discussion underway to merge this and another article. Please let that finish rather than creating a parallel discussion! Once the merger discussion finishes, feel free to nominate either or both articles for deletion if there are good grounds to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to merge this article. It should be scrubbed and memory-holed. jps (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you say, but there is no rush. A bunch of other people are discussing that exact same issue. Why don't you join the discussion instead of creating a parallel discussion? Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is no rush, then we can have parallel discussions. I think we should delete this page and perhaps the other page, but one at a time. jps (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a real pain because everybody has to comment twice (there and here), or we could end up with inconsistent consensus at the two venues, which will lead to a deletion review if this article gets delete while the other discussion decides to merge them. Please don't make so much unnecessary work for your colleagues. Jehochman ^Talk 17:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hav some sympathy with this argument, but what I am seeing is an overwrought discussion about an article that should be speedily trashed. Something failed when this article was allowed to be created in the first place. I just don't see a reason to keep it. The content is bad, the concept is bad, and the suggestion that it deserves merging into a questionable other article is also bad. I don't want to make more work, but it seems to me that a merge discussion is not the right discussion to have. jps (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Let's find common ground. Since it looks like a snow close in favor of merging, why don't you request a closure and let them be merged. Then rip out everything that's poorly sourced. It is useful to document pseudoscience. I'm here because I'm working on Planet Nine. Occasionally editors bring up pseudoscientific theories, not knowing that they are bunk, and I find it very useful to refer them to these articles and say, "See, this stuff isn't real science." Jehochman ^Talk 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable. Unfortunately, I don't know how to request a snow closure of a discussion other than going to the dramah boards. I would not want this AfD to get in the way of the history-preserving deletion. Let's keep talking about this on your talkpage. jps (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Planets in science fiction. Another list of non-notable cruft is something Wikipedia can do without. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect to Planets in science fiction. Science fiction is not pseudoscience or the paranormal. The only entry with an article is Kolob, and the Mormons don't qualify either. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Entries in stand-alone lists are not required to be notable enough for separate articles. Abyssal (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article with the other into Astronomical pseudoscience. Rip out anything without a good source. Jehochman ^Talk 00:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the sources that cover more than a tiny fraction of this are completely unreliable. The only reliably sourced bits as far as I can tell is Nibiru - the rest relies on cranks like Billy Meier and Erich von Daniken or worse. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Two of the three cited sources are scholarly. Abyssal (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by TNT if nothing else. Horrific WP:SYNTH to group these all together. If there isn't already an article on "list of claimed extraterrestrial abductions", there's probably good reason for that. If there is, the "Zeta Reticuli" story can go there. We don't need to conflate a very long list of Unarius Academy of Science's ideas with Mormonism and Scientology either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. There's an ongoing merger discussion on this article's talk page regarding this article and Planetary objects proposed in religion, astrology, ufology and pseudoscience, which has gotten several supports and no substantive opposition except for one person who wants to delete both lists. The other page has been kept at AFD, too, so we shouldn't risk doing something that would leave it a redirect to nothing. Closing this AFD and renominating both together would make more sense, since the topics are essentially the same. It wouldn't be at all inappropriate to copy to there the votes and comments that have been left here, since it would be a procedural keep. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly not a POV-fork. Science Fiction and Pseudo science both involve things that aren't real, but that's where the similarities end, they're very different categories. ApLundell (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2019 (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 DMOZ. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curlie[edit]

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

Article was converted from a redirect to DMOZ and should be restored as a redirect. I've been unable to find significant coverage about Curlie, which is a rump of the better known DMOZ. The only two independent sources included are both directory listings and both call Curlie the successor of DMOZ. There is no evidence of independent notability. Zanhe (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should likely be merged to DMOZ. I created the page as a redirect which IMO is still the right choice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DMOZ per above. KokoPhantom (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not redirect. Curlie is not DMOZ. It should either have its own article or have the URL available should Curlie ever become notable. The DMOZ article is not a place for more than a sentence about Curlie. (Notability is not inherited. If Curlie is not notable, then nothing in this article should be merged into the DMOZ article because by definition it is not notable.) 2005 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect. No indicia of notability. bd2412 T 19:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect. If the project ever takes off we can create a page for it. Right now there is zero evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to DMOZ, as hosting them is what Curlie is best known for and that article is the natural place to discuss forks. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge and Redirect. I tend to agree with the statement "Curlie is not Dmoz" on the basis that one DMOZ was an AOL property and the other (Curlie) is independent. The counter argument is that Curlie is based on the Dmoz concept and work and makes use of the same volunteer editing community (of which I am one) to review and publish sites as well as to run the directory as a whole. Simply deleting the Curlie article from Wikipedia without a replacement solution seems not terribly logical. Merging something active with what should be an archive (Dmoz) isn't something I can follow - though it could be done the other way around, so making the current Dmoz content the history section of Curlie? (in other words, redirecting Dmoz to Curlie). Elper (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Delete (no redirect) separate and not notable, but a source describes as a successor, it's a typical issue we have with forks. Widefox; talk 20:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect because I can find zero RS coverage of Curlie. I can't even find an RS saying Curlie is the successor of DMOZ (though I see some describing it as "based on DMOZ"). ^Leviv_ich? ! 01:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DMOZ: Per the nominator. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia seems to think this outfit is notable enough to have its own template. If this is good enough, then redirect. If its not, delete, but also delete the template. My worry is that Curlie, which has been added as a template to articles, is a depository allowing the liberal addition of spam links, so I would go further and add it to the list of banned sources. Acabashi (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your stance (worry) and reasoning; the template ((Curlie)) should be deleted and the domain should be added to WP:SPB. The template also makes it too easy to get around Wikipedia policy and guidelines (e.g. keeping links to a minimum, not linking to copyrighted works). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ((Dmoz)) was considered for deletion twice (2006, 2017). In December 2017, it was moved ('discussion') from ((Dmoz)) to ((Curlie)). --77.173.90.33 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect At some point, Curlie may become independently notable. Currently it is not. Curlie is a clear fork and continuation of Dmoz, but until we have reliable sources to that effect, it is probably better just being mentioned in the Dmoz article. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2019 (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.