Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 November 26 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 15:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Modjo (Energy supplement)

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

Not notable Mccapra ( talk) 23:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of characters in mythology novels by Rick Riordan#Grover Underwood. Randykitty ( talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Grover Underwood

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

"Biography" of a fictional character, written entirely in-universe and referenced entirely to the books themselves. As always, every character who exists in a work of fiction does not automatically need his or her own standalone article just because the books he's in recursively metaverify their own plots -- the notability test for fictional characters requires real-world context, sourced to critical and cultural analysis of his significance in sources other than his creator's own work. Bearcat ( talk) 23:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 16:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

DatKid Smoove

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

Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. All of the citations are to self-published sources. —  Newslinger  talk 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete A vanity page by an SPA editor. All sources are user-submitted sites, promotional or insignificant. Additional googling turns up the same. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. I have llisted the references on the talk page of then K-pop article. Randykitty ( talk) 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea

Economic impact of kpop throughout South Korea (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It might be theoretically possible to write a real encyclopedia article about this topic, but this is not that article -- this reads more like the introduction to a first-year university essay than like a proper encyclopedia article. The blow it up and start over principle applies here, basically -- even if a good article can be written about the economic impact of K-pop on South Korea, this as written not only isn't that article, it isn't even the seed from which that article could sprout. Bearcat ( talk) 22:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sarasota County Library System. Anything worth merging can be retrieved from the history. I note that at this point, I am unaware of any consensus that libraries are inherently notable (IMO, they're not). Randykitty ( talk) 16:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Shannon Staub Library

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to locate any secondary sources which describe this local library in detail. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Tagishsimon: I looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Libraries for something about inherent notability of public libraries but was unable to find it. If you could please point me to consensus about this I will withdraw my AfD. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Please look up IMO and put a pin in your bogus pomposity. thx. -- Tagishsimon ( talk) 21:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
What is the point of this personal attack? You could have provided a simple shortcut. For instance, WP:IHN for describing inherent notability. – The Grid ( talk) 14:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Partly my misunderstanding. I had no idea what "IMO" meant and assumed this editor was asserting that libraries have inherent notability, when in fact this editor was stating it was "in my opinion". "IMO", "CF", "THX"...IDGI. Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Thank you Magnolia677 for following up with explanation that you didn't understand what Tagishsimon meant. Hmm, i visited here a few times and did not understand your own post, what you meant by the sequence IMO, CF, THX, ...IDGI. Now I finally do, your point is that Tagishsimon used the first three, and then you used the abbreviation for "i don't get it". Ah. Okay, good, and it is a fair point about how we should strive to communicate clearly, for USian and other editors too (just to throw in some jargon that puzzled me in some other discussion, for the heck of it!). Thanks! -- Doncram ( talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't know about pomposity, but I do think that public libraries are basically notable as important institutions that are key part of social fabric. There are countless references in papers to events at the libraries and it is useful to have a Wikipedia page as a reference. It is okay to cover an individual library within an article about a library system instead, but here I don't see a library system article to which this could be merged, and the article seems fine as it is. The article has four sources separate from external link to a county page that seems to be the official page of info for the library, and that does not include no doubt numerous news articles about budgets and so on. The opening hours should be dropped though. -- Doncram ( talk) 05:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Some local libraries--like some elementary schools--are indeed notable. This isn't one of them. Except for this source, which was cited in the article, there is trivial mention of this library in secondary sources (and no, Friends of Shannon Staub Library isn't a reliable source). Unless there is indeed some inherent notability to local public libraries, as User:Tagishsimon has asserted, then let's respect WP:GNG, lest we have articles about every local public library and their poetry reading hours. I see that Elsie Quirk Public Library, also created by this editor, was proposed for deletion by User:DGG. Magnolia677 ( talk) 13:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Given there is a new article on the library system with a section for this one, it is ok by me for this to be closed by "merge" to there, specifically to Sarasota County Library System#Shannon Staub Library. I still think "keep" is ok. "Merge" is preferable to "redirect" as a close because substantial material (including the reference accepted as independent and valid by several here) is being merged / has been merged to there. "Redirect" would be unnecessarily derogatory about the value of the article which was created, in my opinion. — Doncram ( talk) 20:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC) [revised 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)] reply
Thanks for the link to that. That is a new article created at 23:01 on 25 November 2018 by User:Ksroush01, after this AfD was started. Thank you Ksroush01 for doing that. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
No problem! I realized it was new as well. Sarasota_County,_Florida#Museums_and_libraries could have sufficed as well. – The Grid ( talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to the county system , which seems the obvious way to handle this,and the way we have almost always handled similar articles. The article here is no more than an directory entry. None of the sources meet the usual standards. Being a key part of the community fabric would extend our coverage way beyond our usual concepts of notability--for example, it would logically include every local church. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Public libraries are different from churches, which are private, are allowed to discriminate in certain ways, are not publicly funded, have no public info available in general or from, say, FOIL requests, etc. — Doncram ( talk) 20:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
This is important. I'm gonna write an essay about this. Watch wp:ITSALIBRARY (currently a redlink). -- Doncram ( talk) 03:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics. Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Pomona Electronics

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

No significant coverage for this company. A two sentence article. SL93 ( talk) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no significant secondary-source coverage found of this company, only promotional materials published by the company itself. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Sadly, Delete Redirect to Fluke Corporation. Oh, my, that's embarrassing (I'm the original author, 11 years ago). I did some searching. Other than zillions of hits in the DigiKey, Mouser, and similar catalogs, all I could find are a few passing mentions
  • "Barrel-Audio Cables Market Overview, Industry Top Manufactures, Market Size, Industry Growth Analysis and Forecast: 2022 - Market Gazette". Market Gazette. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "Barrel Audio Connectors Market 2018 Global Industry Sales, Supply, Consumption, Demand, Analysis and Forecasts to 2023 - Chronicle India". Chronicle India. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "Top 20 Countries Data of Prototyping Products-Global Market Status and Trend Report 2013-2023: Market Status by Countries, Type, Manufacturers and Downstream Industry of North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa – Depositor Money". depositormoney.com. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
  • "The Synthesizer". Google Books. Retrieved 25 November 2018.
but I can't honestly argue any of this meets WP:NCORP. Which is a shame, and somewhat surprising, since Pomona is a major company in their field, and has been around for ages. I was buying their stuff in the 1980's, and they're still going strong. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to Fluke Corporation#Pomona Electronics, Pomona Electronics's parent company, in lieu of deletion.

    According to https://www.fluke.com/, "The Fluke family includes many brands around the world including PLS, Pomona and Amprobe." Clicking on "Select a Fluke company" and "Pomona" redirects the browser to https://www.pomonaelectronics.com/. This confirms that Pomona Electronics is still part of Fluke Corporation.

    Here are sources I found about Pomona Electronics to verify information about the subject:

    1. Lothrop, Gloria Ricci (1988). Pomona: A Centennial History. Northridge, California: Windsor Publications. pp. 144–145. ISBN  978-0-89781-263-4. Retrieved 2018-11-26.

      The book notes in the "Index" section on page 187:

      ITT Pomona Electronics, 144–145

    2. "Specialization Credited for Steady Growth". Los Angeles Times. 1961-01-29. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 1952

      Pomona Electronics was founded in early 1952 to manufacture one product, a test cable assembly for checking TV picture tubes. Three working partners and one production girl launched the business in a plant area no larger than a good-size living room.

      The nine years since this beginning have seen the company outgrow its quarters twice and progress from this one item (no longer manufactured) to more than 100 specialized products. Their products are enjoying an ever increasing acceptance by manufacturers and laboratories concerned with testing and design of electronic equipment.

      Many of the items currently manufactured are a direct result of development by Joseph Musarra.

    3. Smith, Kevin (2002-04-16). "2 firms planning to leave Pomona - Companies will take 150 jobs with them". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

      The article notes:

      Pomona Electronics, a subsidiary of the Everett, Wash.-based Fluke Corp., plans to move its manufacturing facility to Everett by June, company officials said.

      The company's 34,000-square-foot plant, at 1500 E. Ninth St., employs 100 workers, some of whom will move to Washington and remain with the company, Fluke spokesman Larry Wilson said.

    4. "Fluke acquires Pomona Electronics". Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News. 1999-01-25. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via HighBeam Research.

      The article notes:

      EVERETT, Wash. -- Fluke Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher Corp., announced the acquisition of Pomona Electronics, Pomona, Calif., from its parent company, ITT Industries.

      As part of the agreement, Pomona will continue as Pomona Electronics and will operate as a division of Fluke.

      There is more information about Air Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News at https://www.achrnews.com/contactus.
    5. "25-Year Honors". Progress Bulletin. 1976-01-24. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Carl and Joseph Musarra, founders of Pomona Electronics, now a property of ITT, were honored recently in marking the 25th anniversary of the company.

    6. "Valley company enlarges plant". Progress Bulletin. 1974-11-21. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 1951, by Joseph J. and Carl Musarra, Pomona Electronics produces more than 300 products in the electronic test accessories field.

      The firm maintains a nationwide network of dealer-representatives to serve industrial and government clients. The firm is represented in Europe by ITT Cannon Europe, a division of International Telephone and Telegraph Corp.

    7. "Local electronics firm expands again". Progress Bulletin. 1974-10-12. Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2018-11-26 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Founded in 1951 by brothers Joseph J. (now president) and Carl W. Musarra, Pomona Electronics has grown from a tiny shop with two employees and one product to a multimillion-dollar enterprise producing more than 300 products in the electronic test accessories field.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • There may be enough coverage about Pomona Electronics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. This hinges on how much coverage Gloria Ricci Lothrop's book Pomona: A Centennial History provides about Pomona Electronics. The book's index says "ITT Pomona Electronics, 144–145", which indicates that there could be significant coverage. I do not have access to the book. No prejudice against undoing the redirect if it is determined that the book provides significant coverage about Pomona Electronics.

    Cunard ( talk) 05:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Poisonous Poets

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

There is no significant coverage and they only released one mixtape which has no coverage either. SL93 ( talk) 20:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Better to wait about 6 months before taking this to AfD again (that is, if the article hasn't become better sourced by then). Randykitty ( talk) 17:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Mizna Waqas

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

ACTORBIO states person should "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." to qualify for a standalone WP entry.

Subject does not has had major roles in significant TV series therefore fails to meet ACTORBIO. In the previous AfD, the subject was credited for having played a major role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz - the page itself has been removed because lack of WP:N Saqib ( talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a disrusptive renomination just 2 months after a three week no consensus that had plenty of participation, followed by removing two of her roles from the article which can easily be primary sourced just before this nonination. Passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in national television series as confirmed in reliable sources such as Dawn Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
No disrusptive renomination. You're violating BLP by adding poorly sourced information and citing unreliable sources. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Gertrude Baines

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

Another non-notable supercentenarian. The writing is blatantly promotional and entirely consists of either longevity cruft or other irrelevant filler material, and other than the Guinness notes is routine coverage. Once stripped of all that we're left with a picture and a couple statistics; clearly WP:NOPAGE, and barely even really enough for a minibio. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her earliest memory was a car ride, a list of moves, what presidents she has voted for, and her favorite foods. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 ( talk) 00:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although there is a list of 100 oldest American people ever, I don't see the significance of this achievement. Deb ( talk) 11:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Besides the longevity trivia, all we have is wise advice to eat well and believe in God. I do both, I hope I live that long. Not notable in the least. — JFG talk 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Svetlana Svetikova

Svetlana Svetikova (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Sentul City, Indonesia

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

advertisement article, Sentul City is the name of the private developing project Flix11 ( talk) 14:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 10:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Duel (1957 film)

Duel (1957 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · (1957 film) Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 17:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Dennie_Cody

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

Subject not notable. Lack of sources and level of details make it read like a promotional piece written by the subject. Cubby2718 ( talk) 01:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Dice tower

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

Not notable; this may be a novelty, but it doesn't gain significant coverage in reliable sources, unaffiliated with a specific manufacturer. Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower might also be non-notable. I found this article about a roman artifact, which touches on the Roman usage. Modern usage, on the other hand, is simply not documented in any reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Absurd nomination which proves itself wrong by citing a good source. It is easy to find more coverage such as Roman Artefacts and Society, "The use of a dice tower to prevent cheating by preventing handling of the throwing pieces is the subject of an epigram by Martial. Examples of the dice towers themselves are known from the archaeological record...". Andrew D. ( talk) 22:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    That's just a couple of sentences of coverage. Even if there exist a hundred photos of these things, we would want actual significant coverage of them. Also, does WP:FART not apply to insignificant old artifacts? wumbolo ^^^ 22:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    My view remains that WP:SKCRIT #2 applies and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – while the article needs some sources, it is a significant topic and clearly notable. I found this scientific journal article that proves its lasting significance, and now I see that the same article is actually mentioned in the nomination statement as evidence that it's not "modern" enough! I agree with Andrew - this is absurd. Brad v 04:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously. -- Doncram ( talk) 06:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment with fairness to the nominator, this one's actually really hard: I see a lot of hits talking about the "Roman Dice Tower" which is actually the Vettweiss-Froitzheim Dice Tower, but they are either not from reliable sources or just a photo as it's an interesting looking artifact. Most of the sources that I see that are good have already been mentioned in this AfD, along with [1]. Trying to add a source to the article isn't easy, either: I thought I could source the "dice tumbler" backgammon line most easily and no luck with that after about eight minutes. I don't think it's a delete off of WP:NEXIST due to the Roman history bit, but I can't argue for a keep at the moment, and it's far from an "absurd" nomination. SportingFlyer talk 15:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I appreciate your trying to be nice, and I agree we shouldn't bash deletion nominators all the time. The photo in the article is hugely powerful/convincing/interesting though and on its own it really makes the article a keeper, IMHO, irregardless of other sources. I am not sure if you allude to other photos too, but the one photo really is worth a thousand words. -- Doncram ( talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but I don't see how you would write an encyclopedia article from one without any SYNTH. Very interesting it may be, but sources (via NEXIST if not actual substantial mentions) will be the best argument. The pictures are all on Commons, so that doesn't really affect deletion here. 139.216.48.47 ( talk) 04:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Actually an encyclopedia article has been written. And it has 3 nice pictures now. I don't see any problems with it. There are no citations currently, but there are also no controversial assertions which might require sourcing. There is nothing questioned or debated at all, no tags, no issues raised at Talk page. It is fine. I think we should be done here. -- Doncram ( talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Monopoly (game). Anything worth merging (the article creator themselves seems to doubt there is anything) is still available from the history. Randykitty ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Chance and Community Chest cards

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

Last AfD, ten years ago, concluded with keeping the article until a merge target could be found. A merge target has not been found in ten years, so this article should just be deleted or redirected now. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty ( talk) 17:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Gamemaster's screen

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

Can't find any sources. WP:NOTCATALOG. wumbolo ^^^ 19:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ángeles Franco-López

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

WP:BLP of a radiologist, referenced only to her own self-published résumé and a directly affiliated YouTube video. As always, every medical professional on earth is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists — and no, even becoming president of a professional organization still isn't a notability freebie in the absence of quality sourcing for it. She needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in sources independent of her own self-created web presence, for an article to become warranted. Bearcat ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to restore to someone's draft space if requested but no editor has yet asked specifically Fenix down ( talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Erik McCue

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. PROD nomination removed by creator. BlameRuiner ( talk) 18:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty ( talk) 18:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Brendon Matusch

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

WP:BLP of a teen scientist, whose notability claim of winning a youth science award is not sourced well enough to make him permanently notable yet. The article features just 107 words of content, but is heavily reference bombed to 20 separate sources of which more than half are carpetbombing a single statement -- and the only references that are substantively about him are "local kid does stuff" human interest pieces in his hometown media, while every single extralocal reference is either a primary source that doesn't count as support for notability at all, or a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him. As always, every award that exists does not automatically guarantee its winners a free pass over WP:ANYBIO -- student awards are much less "inherently" notable than professional ones. There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the subject's science project is related to robotics and neural networking while the creator's username was "Robobug11". Bearcat ( talk) 18:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note that there are other articles about EUCYS winners with few other notable accomplishments, such as Liam McCarthy and John D. O'Callaghan and Abdusalam Abubakar. Also, your assertion that the references in question are "human interest pieces in his hometown media" is false -- counterexamples are [3] and [4]. User:Fftgang ( talk) 17:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Neither of those are notability-assisting sources; they're the corporate blogs of organizations, not notability-supporting media. The media coverage, at least the stuff that's actually about him as opposed to just mentioning his name in the process of being about something or someone else, is exclusively from the Sudbury Star, Northern Life and CBC Northern Ontario. Bearcat ( talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply

I have removed several of the irrelevant sources, and added more substantial content about the project. User:Fftgang ( talk) 20:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - It may be true that there are other scientists from this competition with enduring articles, but the existence of one is not a valid predication for the existence of another. They must all independently meet notability guidelines as per WP:BIO. At cursory glance, it appears that the other two articles you've linked are slightly more notable given their individual record-breaking or uniqueness by way of accomplishments, region, or school. As per the guidelines linked above, one such requirement that, if met, demands notability would be that "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Being the students who afford notability to their entire school for having multiple winners, winning themselves multiple awards, or acquiring coverage in multiple publications for breaking records, notable backstories, etc. would all be distinct criteria for notability that it appears the subject of the article above does not meet.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Some relevant information has been added to the article: he is the youngest-ever CWSF best project winner. Does this change things at all? User:Greenobscurum 15:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Comment - This doesn't change my vote. Being the youngest ever winner in an award that isn't all that notable in and of itself in the field does not create notability. The notability for the other winners is generated by coverage in third party sources. Even if this is true about the OP, it isn't apparently yet notable for reliable notable third-party independent sources to cover it extensively. At wikipedia, we don't decide notability often on our own. We rely on reliable sources to do it for us.-- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
No, simply claiming that somebody was the youngest person ever to accomplish something that isn't inherently notable otherwise does not, in and of itself, make him special. If it could be shown to have garnered him enough nationalized media coverage to get him over WP:GNG, then that might make a difference — but if something isn't a notable achievement that would ordinarily get somebody into Wikipedia on its own, then being the youngest person in the list is not an instant pass to being more special than everybody else. Bearcat ( talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 20:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Benezzee

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose notability claims are referenced entirely to his own self-published social networking presence with not a shred of reliable source media coverage about him shown at all. We have seen many instances of self-promoting aspirants making notability claims about themselves that actually turned out to be false -- so the notability test is not what he says about himself on social networks, but requires independent verification in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 18:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Brockhampton discography. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

1998 Truman

1998 Truman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced article about a song, which basically just states that it exists without suggesting any claim of notability per WP:NSONG. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to its own standalone article just because it exists -- it still has to have reliably sourced evidence of impact, for example by charting or by winning Song of the Year at the Grammys, before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat ( talk) 16:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Egyptian Premier League 2009–10 Scorers

Egyptian Premier League 2009–10 Scorers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 ( talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 14:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Egyptian Premier League 2008–09 Scorers

Egyptian Premier League 2008–09 Scorers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sourced and not necessarily needed on Wikipedia. Top goalscorers exists for a reason. Ben5218 ( talk) 16:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Dersim ethnocide

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Dersim Rebellion. I recently undid a move and this article was created instead of proposing a move discussion. This is covered in the article Dersim_rebellion#Genocide_controversy - creating a new article is not a way around a move discussion. Seraphim System ( talk) 16:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply


*Support per nom. There's also a strong consensus from a 2016 RM for the title "Dersim Rebellion" Talk:Dersim_rebellion#About_the_previous_name_change. Apparently this has been a longstanding problem with the article continuing to be moved despite the consensus on the talk page [5]. Most recently a new editor with 25 edits has tried to move it twice in the last couple of months. The move was reverted both times and now we have the creation of this POV fork and retargeting of the redirects to the new article. (If it were an experienced editor I would say this should go to ANI, but I'm very reluctant to take a new editor to ANI who may not understand yet about respecting an existing consensus, etc.) Seraphim System ( talk) 17:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing this AfD, please close it. Seraphim System ( talk) 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ( talk) 16:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 14:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

20 Football Transfers That Shocked The World

20 Football Transfers That Shocked The World (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one-off ITV4 broadcast doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage. The Daily Star reference is the TV guide, and the other reference is to a Youtube video removed as a copyvio. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 17:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Also to add that listing all 20 transfers is considered to be a copyright violation (it is subjective data so we cannot include a full list). Remove that and you have nothing left. -- Masem ( t) 17:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 08:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of the heaviest people#Robert Butler. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Robert Butler (obesity)

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

There seems to be consensus that simply being very old doesn't make one notable, does a similar principle apply for weighing a lot? References are tabloid-style coverage of his death or fat lists from sources that don't appear reliable. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of him. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Kofi Byble


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

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Note also that article were moved to draft space in AFC and were declined twice but however i dont know how it got to mainspace. ShunDream ( talk) 15:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep *This article was posted to mainspace because it was reviewed and accepted by Frayæ & DOOMSDAYER520 after almost two months of waiting for it to be reviewed again. The artiste is very know in Ghana and the fact that he is not featured on international magazines and websites doesn't mean he isn't. I have included over 25 references of top news, entertainment websites which features him. There are also references like MTV, Genius etc on this article which satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a lot of information on this artiste on google which I think he deserves to be on Wikipedia. Malikofori ( talk · contribs) 16:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Malikofori ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep I think this article was well written and we need such contributors on Wikipedia. I vote for Keep because I have done some research myself and the artiste in question is very notable and hence should have a Wiki page. This article shouldn't be considered for deletion. Kofipedia ( talk) 17:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC) — Kofipedia ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Weak Keep - I was mentioned above as "accepting" the article for publication. That is technically true but my involvement was via the New Pages Patrol in which we watch for obvious hoaxes, vandalism, policy violations, etc. but are encouraged to avoid unilateral judgements and to leave notability issues to the community. And this AfD is a good indication of that process. My assertion right now is that the article needs to be trimmed down to remove some obvious attempts at promotion and an over-reliance on blogs. But the singer is signed to a noteworthy label in his country and has a single that generated a little legitimate notice. So he has satisfied various requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN (arguably #1, 11, 12) but I would not object if other voters call for more verifiable evidence that he has progressed beyond merely being noticed by his country's promoters. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG converse 05:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Ceepeecee, British Columbia

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

Fails WP:NGEO. A memoir-coverage in a local-publication. Seeking redirect to Vancouver Island. ∯WBG converse 14:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Jewbook

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

Fails WP:GNG by a mile or so.

Barring Ref 1, which is non-independent (and to an extent, non-reliable) & Ref 2, which is an op-ed; I fail to see significant non-trivial coverage in any RS. ∯WBG converse 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. It sounds notable, but where are the sources? The current two are not enough, and the second source is cited only euphemistically at the moment. Zero talk 05:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY / WP:NEO. There isn't even an agreement in sources as to what "Jewbook" is. There is a small smattering of sources referring to different closed groups of Jewish people on Facebook as "Jewbook". Converesely, in far-right speak this is “jewbook,” a derogatory term for Facebook popular with the far right. Slate (based, in part, on Zuckerberg's religion/ethnicity I believe). The disparate topics do not rise up to GNG (e.g. which Facebook groups (generally not Wiki notable) specifically do these refer to?), and redirect to Facebook based on a slur would be wrong. Echoing Fred's concern above - this phrase is in very wide use in far-right circles (in various forums and chats) - it might make sense to WP:SALT this. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    Icewhiz, pardon me but Fred's concern? He was the creator and was asking to retain it as it supposedly forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself.
    Agree as to the other salient points and about the topic missing GNG. ∯WBG converse 16:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    I was referring not to Fred's creation of the article, but to his comment above of "Forestalls fascist use of Jewbook as meaning Facebook itself." - which is the COMMONNAME at least in internet forums of a very non-RS nature but quite voluminous in terms of usage (e.g. - see Slate I quoted above). I share his concern of such content creeping onto here, and would suggest that SALTing would be a solution preferable to a placeholder article on a non-notable topic (which may be vandalized to become such). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. this online chat group fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As per Icewhiz, recommend a liberal application of rock salt. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Pretty clear GNG fail. Carrite ( talk) 02:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Yoninah ( talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawing the nomination. Found some references on RTL and Business Insider (both in Netherlands sources). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

WakaWaka

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Lots of unreferenced text in the article. One passing mention does not make an article (other 2 are about awards that are not notable on Wikipedia). On BEFORE search, I found: Forbes and HowToGeek articles about their products (not directed to the company so no contribution to GNG or CORP), passing mentions on Gear Junkie and IPSO and short articles about their bankrupcty (routine). The only thing that can be used here is https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurewakawaka-smart-solar-devices-spread-hope-5674359/ Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 14:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Wuhan New Era Football Club

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

Claim of participation in Chinese FA Cup. Couldn't find any WP:RS to support it and fails WP:GNG ShunDream ( talk) 14:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Another reference is added. User:Luwuyi 14:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Coinye

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

per WP:FART. A defunct crypto-currency. Clearly a promotional gimmick even at the time. Coverage is of the lawsuit filed by Kanye West. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett ( talk) 00:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Although I agree with your sentiment, I think we need a more solid deletion rational to go forward. I removed the most blatant non-sources in this edit. Some of the remaining sources are questionably reliable (e.g. cryptocurrency sites), which we could discuss. However, there is still a lot of coverage from RSes; probably enough to pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall ( talk) 18:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 23:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest ( talk) 00:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not every product or cryptocurrency that comes out is notable. You might think this cryptocurrency is notable for how fast it went defunct - actually, no, there are thousands of cryptos that have gone defunct, most fairly quickly. Maybe its notable because it used a celebrity's name without his permission and got sued - no, this garbage happens all the time. Maybe it's notable because of all the hype it got from the cryptocurrency press - nope, that's just promotion and that's all the cryptocurrency press do. Smallbones( smalltalk) 00:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I'm surprised to say - this was a thing that happened and got genuine RS coverage, enough that I think it's worth having an article on - David Gerard ( talk) 17:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It might not be the most notable thing that's ever happened, but it did generate some bemused interest in tech circles while the story played out. I think there was enough notability that it's reasonable to keep around. It was covered in plenty of RS at the time. Warhorus ( talk) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Erika Andiola

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

WP:GNG For someone who is referred to as “prominent”, there is a neglible amount of coverage about her to establish an article (don’t get mad at me when I say it’s because of her immigration status that most facts can’t be verified.) Washington Post source is supposed to be about her yet only mentions her a few times and in the headline they only refer to her as staffer; the article is more related to Bernie Sanders. CNN article article also doesn’t even name her in headline and article is more about her mother. There is no independent coverage to establish notability. Trillfendi ( talk) 05:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Nat965 ( talk) 05:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 2018 LA Times: she is only mentioned in one sentence; the article is not about her at all. Basically media keep quoting her as an activist but no independent sources expand on that, especially without focusing on her mother or employer. Chicago Tribune article doesn’t even include her name in the headline (for an article that supposed to highlight her) and the author has a personal connection to her. Statesman’s headline calls her DACA recipient, not her name, but the article itself gave a 404 error. Anyone can call her an activist but being a DREAMer is not notability. If it was there would be 3.6 million new articles. Trillfendi ( talk) 13:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment Still, to be honest, these rely on her circumstances rather than actual notability of herself for her career. I have yet to see a source actually independently (like I said before, one of those sources had a personal connection to her) delve into her activism without including her mother in it (she’s not a teenager anymore), politicians she’s worked for, or the Dream Act. Prime examples: "Arizona Immigration Activist Hired to Work for Bernie Sanders Campaign", “. "Illegal immigrant students' hopes dashed with DREAM Act's failure in U.S", "Agents take mother of immigration activist in night home raid", "Immigrants Arrested Near Capitol During DACA Protest", and "Sanders-founded group likely to part with staffer who tweeted about 'illegal immigrants'". HuffPost was the only one to call her by her name. What do we even know about her activism besides being personally affected by DACA? Can someone find sources on that? ( Emma González, for example, also went viral but she has significant coverage (not passing mentions or inherited notability) from reliable sources about her work. They even put her name in headlines in articles that are supposed to be about her.) Trillfendi ( talk) 20:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Per above editors. There are plenty of sources not in the article that discuss her in some depth. She's widely quoted in news articles, which is a good proxy for notability for activists, that their views are sought out by professional journalists. 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 18:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Karla Jurvetson

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

I do not see anything in the article which would indicate notability.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Ymblanter ( talk) 12:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak delete I am finding some coverage of a donation of US$5.4 million she made to Women Vote! in May this year. It was controversial as it was in stock in a Chinese company, see here [16] and here [17]. This is not mentioned in the article. The Recode article does describe her as a "little-known doctor from Los Altos", but wonders whether this is the start of large political donations. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 14:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ask Tuki

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE and WP:NOTPROMOTION promotional article for a commercial software. All sources are WP:SPS and owned by parent company IPMG, see its AfD/IPMG and AFD/Shamsaldin that were also maintained by the same sock-farm. Previous PROD was contested by a SOCK. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The only real argument for deletion here is that at the time of nomination the article was not reliably sourced. This has now been addressed, and the better arguments here are for keeping. Michig ( talk) 09:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Ingūna Butāne

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

When I see models with no reliable sources I propose speedy deletion. When that’s contested I propose deletion. Models.com is only reliable for notability when a model is Top 50. That simple. (Note: Yes I looked before and couldn’t find them) Trillfendi ( talk) 18:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Reliable sources supporting the claims in the article are fairly easy to find. Significant ad campaigns, for example, were often covered in WWD, so any WP:BEFORE for a model should include an archival search of WWD (and other pre-internet periodicals for models working in pre-internet time periods). I have added a few sources to the article to verify some of the subject's activities. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I typically go to WWD when doing research but I hadn’t seen it. Trillfendi ( talk) 00:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Élise Crombez

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

“Top 5 Runway Falls” as a source is not notability for an article let alone a modeling career. I could only find one other source on this model. WP:NMODEL

Update: After combing through several pages of only modeling agencies, I only see an interview with the Telegraph where they ask frivolous questions like “what’s your favorite heels” and “most memorable outfit” but not enough info to establish an article about a career. If you find one, present it. Trillfendi ( talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I could easily show you examples of how newspapers / magazines actually briefly profile models without asking such stupid questions. For example. Trillfendi ( talk) 22:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Patterson & Francis Aviation Company

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to sources being passive mentions, as well as no claims of notability. WP:BEFORE did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ( talk) 20:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - it is hard to tell without the actual paper refs cited at hand, but the text supported by the refs indicates that the company was a notable manufacturer in the pioneering phase of aviation. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Rahul Mandal

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

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. I redirected this article to The Great British Bake Off but it was reverted by its creator twice. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 07:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note people have right to edit the page and improve whilst discussion is happening- YOU cannot keep re-directing entry and reverting edits, it's against wikipedia policy. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD? HardB ( talk) 07:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Accusations of blocking per WP:THREAT for things that aren't a threat are, in themselves, threats.--v/r - T P 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@ HardB: Against what policy? And what gives you the authority to lecture other users on what then can and cannot do? You are dangerously close to making a threat there with your comments of IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?-- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • am blown away by folks completely ignoring WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. Those are the results of long and arduous discussions and it as though they didn't exist. And the person fails WP:PROF - the "published academic researcher" is just ... words meaning nothing in light of what the N guidelines actually say. The notability guidelines matter. Jytdog ( talk) 02:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
That one is save-able and you should strike it. Wow. Jytdog ( talk) 11:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
As the point has not been grasped, let's spell it out in more detail. The three conditions specified by WP:BLP1E are:
  1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." That's debatable because a season of Bake Off consists of multiple events – the weekly episodes. And there are now other events such as this engineering event.
  2. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." The subject is no longer low-profile, being promoted as a correspondent for a national newspaper and being prominent in public events.
  3. "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Each season of Bake Off is a significant spectacle in the UK, attracting much coverage and comment. The role of the winner is obviously substantial and well-documented.
So three conditions and all of them indicate that it is appropriate that we should have an article for the subject. Q.E.D. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 04:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • WP:BIO1E states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." So, that guideline supports keeping the page, not suppressing it. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • This isn't a Lee Harvey Oswald type situation. The underlying topic, The Great British Bake Off, is a cooking contest TV show. Lots of game shows on TV, they come and they go, not something that strikes me as "highly significant". The subject of this AfD was a contestant on this show and the winner of a particular season. Again, I don't see anything particularly earth shattering about that. There is a winner every season that the show is on, these winners also come and go. If something particularly unusual happens and a specific contestant has a particularly high impact on the show and transforms it in some significant way, there might be something to talk about. But I don't see that here. Nsk92 ( talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig ( talk) 09:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

David North (socialist)

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

Putting this up together with World Socialist Web Site. Not seeing the notability. Out of 3 references provided in the article, two are from his own website, and in the third one this person is only mentioned in passing. Openlydialectic ( talk) 07:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 09:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since the nomination appears to assess only sources that are in the article, keep in mind that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" ( WP:N). A quick search finds New York Times coverage of his open letter to Google [23], as well as multiple reviews of multiple books (e.g. reviews of In Defense of Leon Trotsky include Gaido, Daniel. The Russian Review Vol. 70, Iss. 2 (Apr 2011): 349; Cox, John K, PhD. International Social Science Review Vol. 87, Iss. 1/2 (2012): 63-65; and Patenaude, Bertrand M. The American Historical Review Vol. 116, Iss. 3, (Jun 2011): 900.; see also [24] [25]). Even without going through the additional book review and news search hits, it looks like a WP:AUTHOR#3 pass as someone who "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has been the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Bakazaka ( talk) 09:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Dunno. the google thing isn't SIGCOV. I am finding the same reviews of In Defense of Leon Trotsky on JSTOR, and I see the reviews - one each of 2 other books - are these sufficient? the many Davids North in the world makes searching a time-consuming task. Perhaps other editors will find more. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • For example. His 1988 book The Heritage We Defend is linked to Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), which features North's Preface to the thirtieth anniversary edition of The Heritage We Defend. So I ran a Proquest archive search on the book, and came up with only a single item: Tribute to Late Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe Daily Mirror; Colombo [Colombo]11 Sep 2010. The item is an announcement by the Socialist Equality Party (SEP) of the death of Comrade Piyaseeli Wijegunasinghe, who "traslated... The Heritage We Defend written by David North, national secretary of the SEP in the US." Having a book translated is a sign of notability, but the source, an SEP press release, is probably not INDEPENDENT, even though it is the SEP in Sri Lanka. I'll revisit this, but it's not as simple as that long list of books makes it appear. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • In addition to wanting to find more reviews of his books, there is the paucity of citation of his work in gScholar. Here is a gScholar search on David + North + trotsky. [26] unimpressive. So I tried David + North + marcism [27], David + North + socialist [28]. I'll revisit and hope that someone can do better. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • [ https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.90.3.0561.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Acafdaa26a604396692fb88525164790d "Most ardently, the American writer David North, in a series of online publications and public lectures, collected and published in the volume, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, tries to restore the image of Trotsky as the main opponent of Stalinism and an advocate of a more democratic version of socialism. North argues from an openly partisan perspective and his language is highly combative and, unfortunately, often aggressive... He believes that the authors purposefully discredited Trotsky and falsified his legacy as a revolutionary leader and thinker. North’s accusations, however, are not sufficiently substantiated."
  • These 3 are the only scholarly reviews, indeed, they seem to be the only reviews of this, his most widely reviewed work, and they show that the Stalin-Trotsky is still raging inside a small, walled garden somewhere in cyberspace. What I am not finding is evidence that In Defence of Leon Trotsky or anything else North wrote is widely cited. Searches turn up little beyond an occassional speaking gigs reported in an undergraduate newspaper. Nor is there WP:SIGCOV of North and his career. For all of these reasons, I suggest...
  • The University of Michigan has more than 45,000 students. It's bigger than most cities in America. The paper is higher quality than most daily papers. It's not Podunk U. Weekly or something. Is your theory that Undergraduate papers don't contribute to notability based on anything other than your preferences? 192.160.216.52 ( talk) 21:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. As the Critical Sociology review of a different North book (linked above the wall of text) explains, North's writings have impact on more mainstream discussions despite being grounded in smaller battles within his political community, which is why his work is reviewed and discussed in, for example, the American Historical Review (reference above) and the Journal of Historical Sociology (review essay on yet another book linked above). Bakazaka ( talk) 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Evidence that "North's writings have impact on more mainstream discussions" is precisely what I am not seeing. Yes, he has gotten reviews. What I would like to see it that the books are cited by others, whether by scholars, popular writers, or journalists. I can always be persuaded to change mu opinion at AfD. But WP:HEYMANN I need to see sources more persuasive than a handful of book reviews (some of which are harshly dismissive of the value of his work,) coupled with the lack of WP:SIGCOV in sources beyond a couple of undergrad newspapers and sources inside the Walled garden Trotskyite socialism. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The actual notability guideline WP:AUTHOR#3 is easily met. Nothing in the WP:AUTHOR guideline requires scholarly citations, nor does the guideline specify that reviews have to be approving (or that one's work being "well-known" precludes being notoriously disliked). No one is obligated to satisfy you. Bakazaka ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • How so? If you mean that the book with 3 reviews, In Defense of Leon Trotsky, is notable, you could make an argument for merge/redirect this page to that title. Although it has hardly been cited at all in all the years since publication [29] I suggested a merge to his political party, but if you prefer the book, you can propose it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Attempting due diligence, I looked at the reviews of 2 other North books discussed above, both reviews are positive: [30], and [31] are positive. However, gScholar shows only 4 citations of The Russian Revolution and the Unfinished Twentieth Century (almost no impact,) and The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique got only 2 hits in gScholar, one is to this review, and the other is to a bibliography. So far, the book has had impact at all. It has been only 3-4 years since publication, but that is enough time in political and intellectual history for a even a book making a novel or important argument, or presenting new evidence to have multiple book and journal citations. Others of his books have sunk without even y a single review. He may be a notable or impactful author, but we need sources to prove it. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I would argue Keep. North is listed as chairman of the international editorial board for the World Socialist Web Site, and has written many articles for that site, and a great number of books that are published with what appears to be their US-affiliated publisher, Mehring Books. Last year North's photo was printed in the New York Times when they ran a story on his allegation that Google's changed search algorithms lower traffic to left wing news services [32]. But looking at academic sources briefly, I see that there are many references to North's work, particularly regarding either 20th and 21st century socialism, or Trotsky. Most of those references are in passing, but the authors appear to take North seriously, especially in the controversy surrounding Robert Service's Trotsky Biography. And there are three academic reviews that are dedicated to North's books.
There is this 2017 Review Essay [33] in the Journal of Historical Sociology (30:86-91) by Charles Thorpe, Associate Professor in Sociology at UCSD. Thorpe devotes two pages to North’s book The Unfinished Twentieth Century, beginning, "It is therefore illuminating to read Radical Intellectuals alongside a book on political and intellectual history by the AmericanTrotskyist David North, who has vigorously defended the life and legacy of Leon Trotsky precisely as the Marxist alternative to Stalin.” Thorpe reviews the arguments of the book and ultimates concludes the review by agreeing with the North's thesis: "The left today would like to leave the Soviet Union behind as a failed project and to believe that its collapse freed them from the debates, concepts, and historical experiences of twentieth‐century Marxism. The Unfinished Twentieth Century makes a powerful case that, to paraphrase Faulkner, these debates and experiences are not dead; they're not even past."
Here is another 2017 book review [34] by Emanuele Saccarelli, Professor of Political Science also at UCSD, published in the journal Critical Sociology (43(4-5):799-802. Saccarelli writes about North's book "The Frankfurt School, Postmodernism and the Politics of the Pseudo-Left: A Marxist Critique," and describes the book favorably as "a valuable contribution to a broad range of important theoretical and political questions located in and around Marxism – with the additional merit of identifying precisely where that boundary lies." Saccarelli also writes what might be useful in content for this bio: "North is the longstanding leader of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP), as well as a member of the editorial board of its well-known affiliated online publication, the World Socialist Web Site." There's a lot more in that review but I'll probably add some of it to the bio directly rather than cluttering this page.
Here's one more lengthy treatment of North's book "In Defense of Leon Trotsky" by Bertrand Patenaude, Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. The review is published in the American Historical Review, June 2011, pages 900-902. "North is an American Trotskyist whose book collects his review essays of Service's volume and of earlier biographies of Trotsky by Ian Thatcher and Geoffrey Swain. (He does not mention my 2009 book, Trotsky: Downfall of a Revolutionary.) Given North’s Trotskyism, he might reasonably be suspected of hyperbole in his brief against Service. But a careful examination of North’s book shows his criticism of Service to be exactly what Trotsky scholar Baruch Knei-Paz, in a blurb on the back cover, says it is: 'detailed, meticulous, well-argued and devastating.'" In every paragraph through the whole review, Patenaude supports North’s book.
I think given's North's association with the WSWS, his prolific authorship, and the combination of articles on his work in scholarship and scholarly references to his work, this bio should stay. - Darouet ( talk) 05:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
I've done a bit of editing to add some third party and reliable sources describing some of North's recent political and academic work. Cheers, - Darouet ( talk) 05:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP independent books describe him as notable trotskyite. A big frog in a pond, I say... - üser:Altenmann >t 05:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources that Bakazaka brought forward are sufficient to show notability. This is not a claim under WP:ACADEMIC so E.M.Gregory's concerns about how often his books are cited on Google Scholar are completely misplaced. He is the head of a political party, albeit a tiny one, and a Trotskyist activist for at least 40 years. Wikipedia ought to have biographies of the heads of political parties, even smaller ones. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Shiv Kumar (actor)

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

Fails WP:N. Regional film director/actor who doesn't passes minimum notability criteria. Godric ki Kothri talk to me 06:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Paul Amadeus Dienach

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

Insufficiently sourced to demonstrate notability. I believe that this is a fictional character invented by Papachatzis as a literary device, and don't see any references that even suggest otherwise; the "Daily Star" article is not at all credible and the only other reference is the book claiming to be his notes. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train Talk 15:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings

AfDs for this article:
List of 2009 United States EPA fuel economy ratings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratings. Per WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings

List of 2008 New Zealand fuel economy ratings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 United States EPA fuel economy ratingsPer WP:RAWDATA and Wikipedia is not an auto buyers guide - especially for products from a decade ago. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, all opposes being socks of the creator. Guy ( Help!) 00:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Cameron Hardy (singer)

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

Non-notable musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. The article previously deleted under Cameron Hardy and the AfC was declined multiple times at Draft:Cameron Hardy. GSS ( talk| c| em) 04:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 04:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article had been moved to draft space prior to the addition of references and completion of all information. Article now meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Article was previously approved. Tunesywikier55 05:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tunesywikier55 ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed and is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
I don't see the Billboard charting anywhere, can you provide an updated pointer? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 14:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
How is he meeting WP:MUSICBIO? Please provide the citations and which numbers he meets there. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 19:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In this diff, the article creator claims that this has charted on a Billboard chart, but this is not mentioned in the citation given. I find no indication that this claim is true and ultimately violates WP:V unless shown otherwise. Given that, notability does not appear to be established. The potential conflict of interest is also noted. -- Kinu t/ c 18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Links to verify claims are either broken or lead to insignificant, non-reliable sources. A name search of Billboard.com returns nothing for the name "Cameron Hardy." The purpose of this article seems promotional. Most charitably, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 22:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article has now been updated and inactive links were either removed or fixed. Tunesywikier55 13:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Momai Tamuli Borbarua

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

There aren't any sources except for "Ms. Assam Buranji, No.7, No.8", which isn't sufficient. Notability isn't enough to warrant subject his own article. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 03:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Christian Worldview Film Festival

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

This festival is unquestionably popular with a subset of Christians, but the article has no substantive reliable independent sources, and Google does not find any for me. A fair bit of PR coverage is regurgitated in the walled garden of Christian sources but these articles lack provable independence - i.e. they are churnalism. Overall the whole thing seems to be like a mirror image of God Awful Movies but without critical analysis. Guy ( Help!) 01:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No indication he has played at a level to satisfy NFOOTY. Whilst there may be non-english language sources out there to satisfy GNG these have not been presented. Fenix down ( talk) 08:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Rene Poms

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the basis that he had managed Wolfsberger AC in the Austrian Bundesliga. This claim is inaccurate. He was the fitness trainer at Wolfsberg, not the manager. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 14:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment if we can confirm he played for Leoben or Kapfenberg, I believe the 2.Bundesliga is a fully professional league. As it stands, only sourced to transfermarkt, no prose, has to go. SportingFlyer talk 14:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
    • There's nothing contentious in the article as it stands, all the facts are readily verifiable, we just need to know if he also played in a FPL. If that's the case, it doesn't need to go, it needs to be improved per WP:IMPERFECT. He seems to speak to the media a lot for an assistant coach, so he might even pass WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 17:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
      • I did a GNG search for him with Dinamo and only got name-drops, no significant coverage in Croatian media. But since transfermarkt is the one source and there's no other prose it needs to be deleted if he has no appearances, or draftifyed if he does. SportingFlyer talk 01:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

ION (IPTV)

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

Fails WP:GNG; may be promotional Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 16:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 09:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC) reply

Optimus Design Systems

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

Article on a corporation has had zero (0) sources for the preceding 13 years.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no references to the company except a one-word, passing mention on fanzine called "poltergeist.pl" [37]. Also, its address appears in a wholesaler directory catalog.

The WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG is not established. WP:CORPDEPTH is not demonstrated. Chetsford ( talk) 19:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 19:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 19:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chetsford ( talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_25&oldid=1142615365"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE