Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 October 25 October >

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 redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States. Redirecting per WP:ATD. The history is still there, so people can still merge material if they want on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Lucy Hannah

AfDs for this article:
Lucy Hannah (  | 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 notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. The sourcing for this article is a mere two extremely brief book mentions and a GRG list entry, and fails WP:GNG because she lacks WP:SIGCOV proving notability. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE brief mentions referencing her age in articles about other people. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E apply as the article says nothing about her except her life dates, towns born/died in, claimed records, and she was a black American woman. Her presence on three separate lists is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 ( talk) 01:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion. Here is basic biographical coverage about her (closely paraphrasing from the sources I present below):
    1. Lucy Hannah was born Lucy Terrell on 16 July 1875 in Linden, Alabama.
    2. Hannah's parents were freed slaves.
    3. Hannah was "well acquainted with poverty".
    4. Hannah moved to Detroit to evade the racial prejudice of the South.
    5. She married John Hannah in 1901.
    6. She had eight children.
    7. Her mother died at age 99 and two of Hannah's sisters died at or after age 100.
    8. She died March 21, 1993, in Detroit at the age of 117 years, 248 days.
    9. She outlived all but two of her children.
    10. Hannah received little to no media coverage about her longevity during her lifetime, possibly because she predeceased Jeanne Calment, who was older than she.
    11. There is no published picture of Lucy Hannah.
    12. She is the fourth longest lived person.
    13. She is the second longest lived American.
    14. She is the longest lived African-American.
    It is possible to make a weak case for Lucy Hannah passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The coverage of her is very thin though. Even researcher Robert Young writes, "Due to a lack of detailed information, this case will not be examined closely in this chapter."

    The nominator mentioned WP:NOPAGE, a shortcut for Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages. I think that owing to the scant biographical coverage of the subject, it is better to merge the article to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people instead of keeping it as a standalone article.

    Here are sources about the subject that verify the list of facts I have presented above:

    1. Withington, John (2017). Secrets of the Centenarians: What is it Like to Live for a Century and Which of Us Will Survive to Find Out?. London: Reaktion Books. pp. 68, 98. ISBN  978-1-78023-818-0. Retrieved 2018-10-26.

      The book notes on page 68:

      For a long time, the United States had more centenarians than any other country, so it is no great surprise that the third-oldest human being ever to have lived (and the oldest African American of all) was Lucy Hannah, born Lucy Terrell on 16 July 1875 in Linden, Alabama. Her parents had been slaves, and Lucy herself moved north to Detroit to escape the racial prejudice of the South. She got married in 1901 and had eight children, only two of whom survived her. Hannah died on 21 March 1993 at the age of 117 years, 248 days. She too is said to have had long-lived relatives, with her mother living to 99 and two sisters reaching 100.

      The book notes on page 98:

      Only Jeanne Calment and Alice Herz-Sommer came from notably prosperous backgrounds, and Herz-Sommer lost everything when the Nazis took power, while Lucy Hannah, Albert Marshall, Octavio Orduno and Hetty Bower were well acquainted with poverty, and ...

    2. Ennart, Henrik (2013). Åldrandets gåta: Vetenskapen som förlänger ditt liv (in Swedish). Stockholm: Ordfront. p. 114. ISBN  978-91-7441-406-6. Retrieved 2018-10-26.

      The book notes:

      Lucy Hannah som blev nästan 118 år var dotter till frigivna slavar och levde sina sista år på ett äldreboende i Detroit. Det var först flera år efter hennes död 1993 som hennes höga ålder blev känd och kunde bekräftas.

      Hon uppmärksammades aldrig av medier under sin livstid och än i dag finns det inte en enda bild publicerad som visar hur hon såg ut.

      Ett skäl kan ha varit att hon var samtida och något yngre än Jeanne Calment som fick allt strålkastarljus riktat mot sig. Åren efter sin död var Lucy Hannah ändå den äldsta människa som någonsin dött, men då var alltså den lite äldre Calment fortfarande i livet.

      From Google Translate:

      Lucy Hannah, who became nearly 118 years old, was the daughter of released slaves and lived last year in an elderly Detroit resident. It was only several years after her death in 1993 as her high age became known and could be confirmed. She was never aware of the media during her lifetime and yet today there is not a single picture published showing how she looked. One reason may have been that she was contemporary and slightly younger than Jeanne Calment who got all the headlight lights directed towards him. The year after his death, Lucy Hannah was still the oldest person ever died, but then the little older Calment was still alive.

    3. Harris, Timothy (2009). Living to 100 and Beyond. Winsted, Connecticut: ACTEX Publications. p. 85. ISBN  978-1-56698-699-1. Retrieved 2018-10-26.

      The book notes:

      Lucy Hannah

      Ms. Hannah, another American, is the fourth longest living person, the second longest living American and the longest lived African American. She lived to the age of 117.

    4. Young, Robert (2010). "Age 115 or more in the United States: Fact or fiction?" (PDF). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-11520-2_15. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-10-26. Retrieved 2018-10-26 – via Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research. {{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= ( help)

      The source notes:

      With the exception of one case, Lucy Hannah. Lucy Hannah: Aged 117 or 118? (July 16, 1875-March 21 1993) The Lucy Hannah case is different than most in that her claim to age 118 did not gather much attention (if any) while she was living. The first mention of this case in a national listing was in the 1999 SSDI listings. The claim to age 118 would have made Lucy the world’s oldest person, if validated. But for reasons unknown, this case never made it into the news.. However, in September 2003, the SSA study reportedly validated the age of Lucy Hannah to be one year younger than claimed, or 117. This would make her the third-oldest validated person after Calment and Knauss but never the world’s oldest person, as Calment was a few months older at the time. Due to a lack of detailed information, this case will not be examined closely in this chapter.

    5. Sawe, Benjamin Elisha (2017-04-25). "Oldest People Ever Confirmed To Live". WorldAtlas. Archived from the original on 2018-10-26. Retrieved 2018-10-26.

      The article notes:

      Lucy Hannah

      Born on July 16th, 1875, Lucy is the second American supercentenarian after Sarah Knauss and the third world’s oldest person. She is also the first African-American to reach 117 years. In 1901, she got married to John Hannah and gave birth to eight children. It is also believed that longevity was present in her family since her mother lived for 99 years while her two sisters lived to be 100 years. Lucy was also born the same year as Jeanne Calment (the 1st oldest person to live). She died in March 1993 at the age of 117 years and 248 days.

    Cunard ( talk) 08:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Most of the points you make about her are pure longevity fanfluff (oldest this, had old relatives, was poor). Your first source got her year of death wrong so it does not seem reliable and all the sources you listed are mere very brief mentions regurgitating the same scant information. There is nothing of substance to merge or redirect about Lucy Hannah. Furthermore, while the 110 club is not considered a reliable source since it is a forum, I think it is worthwhile to mention that the co-author of one of the cited books, the head of the GRG (another source used in the article), and an affiliate of GWR (the third source in the article) Robert Young, publicly claimed this year on that website using his official account that Lucy Hannah actually died in her 90's, not at 117. If true, this would explain the complete lack of contemporaneous media coverage of Hannah's supposed age records and why so little is known about her in general. Newshunter12 ( talk) 22:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • The first source is a reliable source. It did not get the year of death wrong. I make a typo when I typed it here. I have corrected the year. There is enough biographical information that is not "pure longevity fanfluff" to support a merge:
    1. Lucy Hannah was born Lucy Terrell on 16 July 1875 in Linden, Alabama.
    2. Hannah's parents were freed slaves.
    3. Hannah was "well acquainted with poverty".
    4. Hannah moved to Detroit to evade the racial prejudice of the South.
    5. She married John Hannah in 1901.
    6. She had eight children.
    7. She died March 21, 1993, in Detroit at the age of 117 years, 248 days.
    The reliable sources (including the most recent source, the 2017 Reaktion Books-published book) I have found all say she died at 117 years old. I could not find any reliable sources that say "Lucy Hannah actually died in her 90's, not at 117". Robert Young wrote in a 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg GmbH-published book, "the SSA ( Social Security Administration) study reportedly validated the age of Lucy Hannah to be one year younger than claimed, or 117". If and when Robert Young or anyone else publishes in a reliable source any new research refuting the Social Security Administration study's conclusions, that can be considered.

    I consider List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people a reasonable merge target for Lucy Hannah, whom reliable sources call a supercentenarian from the United States.

    Cunard ( talk) 04:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Hannah clearly fails WP:GNG and so doesn't merit an article or mini-bio after a merge regardless of the little bit that can be dredged up about her in various brief mentions. Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
There is nothing wrong with deleting non-notable supercentenarian articles (it's a very well established practice) and Hannah is already on three different lists; besides, there is nothing to merge from this "article" that isn't already part of her list entries. Please tell us what would be gained from a merge? Newshunter12 ( talk) 07:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/merge per WP:NOPAGE. It's always WP:NOPAGE. Always. E Eng 04:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Redirect/Merge Per nom, EEng, etc, etc. WP:NOPAGE. Insufficient encyclopedic content to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 06:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • (pinged)Delete/Redirect/Merge. It's nearly 11 years since I nominated this article for AFD back in December 2007, and it still fails the basic WP:GNG criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no significant coverage anywhere, not even in the spammy POV-pushing output of the flaky Gerontology Research Group.
Nor does this article pass any of the three criteria WP:ANYBIO. All we have is a factoid: oldest ever Africa-American woman.
As the nominator says there is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”, but that has been the basis of most of the keep votes in previous discussions.
Personally, I think it's a pity that nobody has taken the trouble to research and publish a longer piece about her, but we cannot wish sources into existence. So we are left with WP:NOPAGE: the factoid here does not need a standalone page, and we already have suitable lists to use as a merge target. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails to satisfy the reliable independant source criteria and thus fails WP:GNG and also fails to pass any of the three criteria WP:ANYBIO and the content seems to beating around the bush with no relevant personal authentic data. Vinodbasker ( talk) 04:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per the arguments presented by Brown Haired Girl. The arguments I made 11 years ago also still apply. Notability is lacking. The only documentary evidence is from the1920 census where there is a “Sytha L. Hannah” married to John Hannah. Where is she in the censuses of 1880 and 1900 (the 1890 census was accidentally burned) as Lucy Hannah and in 1910, 1930 and 1940 as Lucy Timmons after her marriage to Timmons? Edison ( talk) 01:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was Consensus is too delete. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

SwiftCoin

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

Nearly all references are from cryptocurrency "news" sites or otherwise not reliable. Best sources are this short article on an African tech magazine site that was viewed less than 1,000 times and an even shorter article on an Uruguay news site which is about their business getting hit by a car. Translation has no mention of "swiftcoin". Morgan Ginsberg ( talk) 22:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment This comment from Morgan Ginsberg is fake news. It is also subtly racist by suggesting that an African website is not a worthy news source about technology. The word Swiftcoin is literally on the first line of the first paragraph of the Finextra reference [1] and this investors directory reference [2] and the AM Bankers reference [3] and this crypto site reference [4] Interfacts ( talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. For more of the same, check out the entry for Solidus_Bond (apparently a SwiftCoin exchange), created by the same editor. Pegnawl ( talk) 05:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment for completeness, I tried to look for some other coverage of SwiftCoin. A search of Google News yields a few references in real news sites 1 2 3 but they are rather trivial mentions, all parts of long lists of cryptocurrencies. There are no results for "SwiftCoin" upon search of the Cryptology ePrint Archive which is used to distribute academic works in cryptography. I found a few academic surveys of cryptocurrencies 4 5 upon a search of Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar. The following report to what I believe is a Peruvian government agency has two pages on SwiftCoin (but is of course in Spanish) 6. This is all I could find about SwiftCoin in reliable mainstream (i.e. non-cryptocurrency-devoted) sources. BenKuykendall ( talk) 03:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nice finds, but looking closer at them makes me think most of them mentioned Swiftcoin only because they saw it on Wikipedia. The Swiftcoin article was made in July 2017 and only the Peruvian paper (which is the best) and this mention (which is the worst, "Etherium" is spelled wrong) were published before.
  • Comment The above comment by BenKuykendall is pure FUD and fake news. The Cryptology ePrint Archive [5] has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cryptocurrency and was not used as a reference for this article. The obscure Peruvian website [6] entitled "Electronic Money in Peru," was NOT used as a reference for this article. Interfacts ( talk)


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can you expand on how WP:GS/Crypto has anything to do with this discussion? Of the refs you provide, the first three include SwiftCoin on a list only (failing WP:CORPDEPTH), Cointelegraph is decidedly not RS per the RS Noticeboard, and the International Business Times piece doesn't even mention Swiftcoin. Pegnawl ( talk) 14:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment International Business Times talks about Swiftmail. SwiftCoin = Swiftmail, they are the same thing, with two names. [13] And here again, swiftmail is on the SwiftCoin blockchain [14] Significance: First encypted communication system that is decentralized. The security of the mail is done by blockchain, not a central authority. So, it is notable. It is not the same as other cryptocurrencies. Lastly: the first 3 references have a short list of notable cryptocurrencies that either compete with or are distinct from bitcoin. This is supportive of notoriety. -- Felmö ( talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
According to their own FAQ, SwiftCoin ≠ SwiftMail. As for the lists, they won't satisfy most editors as they fail WP:SIGCOV. Pegnawl ( talk) 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment More fake news to get a wikipedia page deleted. The website [15] and related news coverage announce encrypted mail sent over the Swiftcoin blockchain. The press coverage is not just copy and paste from press releases. The Swiftmail FAQ [16] even has a picture of a 32 character alphanumeric Swiftcoin wallet address as opposed to a 34 character bitcoin wallet address. The first encrypted mail sent over a blockchain is indeed notable and explains John McAfee's alleged interest in the project, even if he distanced himself later because he demanded more money from the developers of the project. Interfacts ( talk)
  • Comment Gozames has an undisclosed conflict of interest. He advocates for other cryptocurrencies competing with the topic of this AfD. [17] Gozames is also on a sanctions list. [18] Interfacts ( talk)
  • Comment What can be said is that a huge amount of FUD and fake news is being put out in a coordinated effort to get a page deleted. Part of the effort is motivated by proponents of other cryptocurrencies, as per Gozames Interfacts ( talk)
  • Delete. All the references point towards Cryptocurrencies, swiftcoin is just a mention with no reliable independant source so fails NOTABILITY.But cryptocurrencies usage in money transaction is on the rise- so will suggest WP:TOOSOON , because this topic may become relevant in future. Vinodbasker ( talk) 04:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Not so. Not all the references are from sites dedicated to cryptocurrencies. On October 24, a new section was created to improve the article, including the book Blockchain Quick Reference: A guide to Exploring Decentralized Blockchain [1] [2] While a United States patent, a United States trademark and mention in a reference book do not, per se, denote notability, the totality of the evidence does denote notability because it is highly unusual for a cryptocurrency to be granted a patent and trademarked by a government. That said, wikipedia articles about a new technology will inevitably get their best references from media sites dedicated to coverage of their industry. General news sites don't usually report about something unless there is a controversy or something salacious. For example with bitcoin, there is general news coverage when there is an indictment for a Ponzi scheme. The notability and utility of a technology is not what guides editorial decisions at CNN, FOX or WaPo. Interfacts ( talk)
  • Comment I just did a complete source check. Nearly all the sources are bad - mostly sourced to personal blogs, bitcoin blogs or primary sources. I removed a pay-for-play outlet. This article is badly-sourced puffery even by the standards of crypto articles. If it were cut down to RSes it would be two lines - David Gerard ( talk) 18:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply


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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hal and Sidra Stone

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

No independent RS, does not meet WP:SCHOLAR Wqwt ( talk) 06:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Mindmeld (Marvel Comics character)

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

Character only appears once, according to Marvel Wikia, and is only linked by List of Marvel Comics characters: M. Does not meet WP:GNG. Too minor to merge. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 21:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Mary Josephine Ray

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

Yet another non-notable oldster. Nothing beyond routine coverage, all local papers and obituaries, leaving this a permastub with no suitable place for redirecting. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 20:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her work history and her taste in sports. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 ( talk) 23:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – This person got older than most, good for her, we have tables to record this, where readers can sort and compare at will. The rest of her biography is eminently non-notable. — JFG talk 03:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete seriously some unrelated 113 year old guy was ALSO a Red Socks fan? Junk that gets added when we know very little able the subject and want to pad the article out. Legacypac ( talk) 09:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Isiraac

Isiraac (  | 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;ve laid off Somali geography for a while, but this came up with essentially nothing: ninety GHits, all of which are either us or copies of us or total trash. There's no coords and nothing else but a name by which to identify this, and the description of its location doesn't make sense. Mangoe ( talk) 18:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete an unsourced stub with no references found; unsure if it's a hoax or a bad transliteration or a division name used by only one of several feuding governments, but it should be deleted in any of those situations. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mkdw talk 22:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Bank of Maine Ice Vault

Bank of Maine Ice Vault (  | 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 fail WP:GNG with only highly-localized WP:NOTNEWS coverage of a hockey team as its sources. Outside of a local place of interest, it gets no significant coverage from independent outside sources to make this anymore notable than any other city rec center.

Was de-prodded as "large enough to be notable". As far as I am aware, size has absolutely no inherent presumed notability and still must have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (from GNG). Not mention a capacity of just over 500 is not exactly large, most high school gyms are that big.

This only is covered by the city paper or a few WP:ROUTINE mentions about "such-and-such local team played at Ice Vault". No other decent results under the current Camden National Bank Ice Vault name. Yosemiter ( talk) 19:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Unless, of course, you click "news" on the search bar and see the the arena, the collapse, and issues like financing and construction standards have been covered in press from Bangor to Portland - although this arena is Hallowell. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I believe my original comment is still valid. However, the topic seems to have changed from the article's current topic to making the topic History of Ice Rinks in Hallowell, Maine. I don't care to do the research necessary to cast an informed vote on this new topic, so I have struck my original vote. Papaursa ( talk) 20:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. collapse of the old Kennebec Ice Arena got INDEPTH press coverage, unsurprising - it's Maine. Roofs are supposed to withstand snow: Officials scramble after roof collapse: They say they're still trying to figure out what happened at the Kennebec Ice Arena Wednesday. Portland Press Herald; Portland, Me. [Portland, Me]04 Mar 2011; The memories that never will be erased: The Kennebec Ice Arena played a pivotal role in the development of hockey and other activities. Hawkins, Gary. Portland Press Herald; Portland, Me. [Portland, Me]13 Mar 2011. New arena also gets coverage: Collapsed arena rebuilt, and it's 'incredible': The $4 million Bank of Maine Ice Vault replaces the Kennebec Ice Arena in Hallowell, built in 1973. Stewart, Bill. Portland Press Herald; Portland, Me. [Portland, Me].; Ice Vault critique unfair
Morning Sentinel; Waterville, Me. [Waterville, Me]04 Mar 2014: 1.A. ; Arena developer defends use of TIF Portland Press Herald; Portland, Me. [Portland, Me]01 Mar 2014: A.1. Like so many pages, this one on a public building of regional importance just needs improvement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • We can cover both the old arena that had the roof collapse, and the new arena in a single article. Surely we can afford the paper and ink to include an article about a stadium that has had SIGCOV when the roof caved in from too much snow, when the new stadium was built, and related to financing questions surrounding the new building. Multiple WP:RS exist. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per [[User:E.M.Gregory|], including that surely there can be combined coverage about the previous and new versions of the building/ice rink, probably best as one article. -- Doncram ( talk) 18:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. While it has a different name and structure, it is essentially the same arena as the one it replaced. Together, there are multiple, independent sources covering the subject in-depth.-- TM 11:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per all above and E.M.Gregory's sources. This does appear to meet WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 12:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Collapse of the old Kennebec Ice Arena got INDEPTH press coverage and there are reliable independant sources to prove it so clearly passing WP:GNG. Vinodbasker ( talk) 04:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

@ E.M.Gregory: @ Atlantic306: @ Doncram: @ Namiba: @ Vinodbasker: @ Ejgreen77: To all of the above voters, I did not nominate the Kennebec Ice Arena (which at one point had its own article before being redirected here in 2012), I nominated the Ice Vault that replaced it and the sole topic of the current article. It does seem that most agree the coverage Ice Arena with the collapsed roof meets GNG (despite sounding like a WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GEOSCOPE situation), however, it has two sentences in the current article and no one has addressed the coverage of Ice Vault alone. Maybe it should be split as a historical arena for the Kennebec Ice Arena? That is why there are so many articles about former MSGs at Madison Square Garden (disambiguation). Even on the Ice vault talk page, the local editor seems to say the same. Otherwise, I agree with User:Papaursa, the references and votes are about "ice arenas in Hallowell", not the topic at hand, the Ice Vault. In essence, you are not actually voting "Keep", you are all voting to "Change the Topic" Yosemiter ( talk) 18:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to USATF National Club Cross Country Championships. Because WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Tinman Elite

Tinman Elite (  | 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 running group for whom there does not appear to be significant independent coverage from reliable secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
GoOKC, I show that newspapers like USA Today, Des Moines Register, and USATF show this group is an elite certified club with international caliber athletes training for IAAF world competitions. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tinman_Elite&action=edit&oldid=868446225 Nosebagbear ( talk talk Sam Sailor Stifle ( talk (T) Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:17, 13 November 2018
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 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Anand Prakash

Anand Prakash (  | 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 25-years old person had some coverage in newspaper when he found a bug in facebook and other apps. He looks like a bug bounty hunter. He has published an app providing platform for bug bounties. He is low-profile individual and may be an example of WP:BLP1E. I think he fails WP:GNG because has not garnered sustained coverage. The article is promotional and violates NPOV. Nizil ( talk) 11:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 12:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

He is listed in forbes 30 under 30 and I would like to all gentleman to check the notability of the person on your own. but I think this report is complete bullshit.

please help me here user:shellwood This is enough do one go ahead with deleting it I have no respect left for wiki open policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruggyman2 ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The wiki page seems to be genuine but probably written from a fan's perspective. I think it should be on wikipedia but definitely needs to be improved. There is lot of media coverage on this person in 2015,2016,2017,2018 . also list in forbes 30 under 30 list of Asia in 2017

Google search results on him


Edited article removed promotion, added more references which may show notability of the person. Please check now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.227.7.201 ( talk) 14:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Sect (Canadian band)

Sect (Canadian band) (  | 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 have found very little information online about this band. Of the three sources I was able to find, one appears to be posted on a website operated by a single person who also prepares band publicity packages, one is only two sentences, and the Mindphaser website is closely connected to Front Line Assembly, whose members played on Sect's only album. There's a biography at AllMusic, but it appears to be about a different band. I didn't find any information about performances or charting of the album tracks. None of the band members have a WP article to which this information could be directed, but possibly the information could be added to Third Mind Records and the article redirected there. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Sadly, delete because they look like a cool little band. But that's not enough to support WP:GNG. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a band with a seven year publication history, which was produced by a musician who went on to play with Front Line Assembly, and which occupies a unique place in the development of techno-industrial music. There's a review discussing the band's significance on Santa Sangre, and their releases all have Discogs entries. This is not an obscure garage band. The article could certainly be improved, but notability shouldn't be in question. —  JEREMY 03:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
"Discogs" us a user-contributed (crowdsourced) database; an entry there doesn't show any notability at all. The Santa Sangre review is posted on Wordpress blog (it says so right on the page), and so is a weak source, but at least it names the reviewer (who says "I read no interviews, never heard them in clubs"). Whether the releases were close together or over seven years seems unimportant to notability; what would make a difference is if reviews or feature articles about some of these releases by recognized music critics could be found, or even reviews of the so-far unnamed compilation albums. If the band's one album was engineered by a notable producer, but didn't attract reviews or feature articles in edited publications, then maybe Sect (band) should be redirected to the Chris Peterson (producer) article, which is a stub, and could use some content.— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I realize that it is difficult to source content about subject from this period, therefore I would recommend that the creator of the article look into archived sources (for example in https://www.newspapers.com/ or other archives, and these sources need not be available online). At the moment the sources are not quite sufficient to justify keeping, although personally I would redirect it if no further sources are forthcoming. A couple more good news sources or review articles should be sufficient. Hzh ( talk) 13:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Discogs.com is an indiscriminate directory which, while it isn't perfect, tries to have an entry on every album that exists at all — so it's like IMDb, in that inclusion there does not instantly confer an automatic inclusion freebie here. Being active for seven years is not a notability freebie that exempts a band from actually having to pass any WP:NMUSIC criterion. NMUSIC #5 requires two albums, not one; NMUSIC #6 requires two members who are independently notable enough to have their own standalone BLPs, not just "the album was engineered by a non-member who later became a member of a more notable band". Santa Sangre is a WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-building source, and so is Chaos Control, so that isn't helping either. And while as an actual paper alt-weekly that existed well before blogs became a thing, Westword is a more reliable source in theory, it just gives this band's album a 34-word blurbette in a "many blurbettes about many different albums" listicle — which means that it's not substantive enough to constitute a magic GNG pass all by itself as the article's only real media source. And I did search newspaper archiving sites, for the record, but I found nothing better anywhere else either. Bearcat ( talk) 16:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Basically, WP:TOOSOON. It can get moved back to mainspace when it becomes a thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Family Reunion (2019 TV series)

Family Reunion (2019 TV series) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Couldn't find any sources other than basic confirmation of the series existing and saying it will be aired in 2019 and who's in it. No in-depth coverage. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: If you look at the reliable source it tells you that who's starring in it. In addition, I am trying to get it to redirect to Family Reunion (TV series). It's not WP:TOOSOON when Netflix had given the production a straight-to-series order for a first season consisting of twenty episodes with several series regular roles.— Lbtocth talk 18:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    I never said that the source didn't say who's in it, I specifically said that that's almost all the source says. And per the notability guidelines, there has to be significant coverage in reliable sources. The coverage I've been able to find is minimal, not in-depth, and is almost entirely factual reporting that the series is going to happen/who's going to be in it, without any real analysis. Just existing (or having a confirmed future existence) is not enough to satisfy notability guidelines. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Further Comment: It's sufficient to move to Draft/redirect to Draft. For you information, the actresses and actors had been cast. It's not speculation. — Lbtocth talk 22:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Again, I never said that anything was speculation. I don't doubt that all the facts presented are true. But just because something is true and exists doesn't mean it's notable yet. That said, I could support moving this to Draft space and deleting the redirect. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Directly from WP:DRAFTS, Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first.— Lbtocth talk 23:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
If you don't feel the article is appropriate for the draft namespace, I could also get behind making it a userspace draft, or deleting it until and unless it becomes notable. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I support moving to Draft:Family Reunion (2019 TV series) because this seems more appropriate than deleting the article altogether. A page mover would need to do move the article to Draft:Family Reunion (2019 TV series) without leaving a redirect later. An editor who is not a page mover will leave a redirect later. In addition, it can't be move until this is closed. A Draft allows other editors to work on it. — Lbtocth talk 22:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Ivanvector getting whacked with a wet trout. Meant to nominate the redirect, not the article. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Universal Entertainment Corporation

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

Conflicts with the intitialism UPL -> Unauthorized practice of law (itself also a redirect). This page was formerly an article on a subsidiary of Universal Entertainment but there is no information present in the article describing what the initialism is, and as such it should be retargeted to the legal definition. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 18:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Battle of Porta Littoria

Battle of Porta Littoria (  | 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 poorly sourced attempt to rehabilitate the image of the Italian army during the end of the second world war . I could find no mention of the battle that according to the creator was an Italien Victory. This is second article that the creator has tried to make us believe that a handful of Italians saw off a legion of French soldiers and finally surrendered to the Americans who let them march out with their heads held high and the honours of war. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Noone is suggesting that it is a hoax but that the information included is not backed up by sources and that nothing suggests that this is worthy of an article. Nothing else was found in a before search and this editor has a history of creating articles with false information in them and is a tendentious editor. If I had found anything to show this event was reported elsewhere I would have tagged for improvement. Dom from Paris ( talk) 16:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment For some reason we have two articles on this campaign; Second Battle of the Alps and Battle of Authion, which probably should be merged. That the Germans and Italians did hold off the French is beyond question. As is the fact that the Italian Army was still able to inflict defeats on the French and Americans in 1945. (And that there apparently remains some animosity between the French and Italians that stems from the events of June 1940.) The question is whether this action is worthy of its own article per WP:CONTENTFORK ie is worthy of its own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Authion was but one episode in the fighting that took place all along the Western Alps in 1944–45. Srnec ( talk) 19:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
If that's the way the want to organise them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non-notable. I cannot find enough sources in any language, searching both Porta Littoria and La Thuile. Only RSI: Forze armate della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, a minutely-detailed three-volume history of the armed forces of an ephemeral puppet state that fought in a secondary theatre seems to have anything. (I can't see it on Google, but I can't entirely trust it either, since the publisher—Albertelli—is given to militaria of widely varying quality, from the lurid to the scholarly). Coverage of this "battle" does not rise to the level of notability independent of the wider campaign it was a part of (the Second Battle of the Alps). If it were better sourced I'd say merge. Srnec ( talk) 02:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dylan Brady

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

Three of the refs are YouTube, some of the others are not visble in Europe but the assertions that they support do not make for notability. He had a small section on a disney channel programme and he has released a couple of songs. None of this makes for notability. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   18:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dylan Brady has enough notability to have a Wikipedia page. He has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across TV on the Disney Channel. He has also had a musical released that charted North Americans iTunes Pop Charts. His fan base on Instagram Twitter and Facebook is more than 200,000 collectively across the platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skicrazy7393 ( talk • contribs) 04:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Dylan Brady has enough notability for a wikipedia page, he is signed with the most awarded country band in history, Rascal Flatts, he works with country artist Zac Brown not only by opening for him but making a differences in children's lives together through Camp Southern Ground. He is featured on Disney Channel, upwards of 200,000 streams on collective platforms for music consumption. He is verified on all social platforms that have over 200,000 in reach, opened for Meghan Trainor and 5 Seconds of Summer, toured with the members of Why Don't We and is featured on Spotify's and Apple Music's biggest country playlists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancychenderson1963 ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC) — Nancychenderson1963 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fish (singer). There's a preference stated for delete and redirect, but I don't see any valid arguments to support that. We generally only delete the history in cases of copyvio, BLP problems, etc. Simple lack of WP:N isn't a good reason. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dick Bros Record Company

Dick Bros Record 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)

Non-notable record company that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, as per source searches. Could be redirected to Fish (singer). North America 1000 10:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fish (singer). This one's a little tough, because it's mostly a vanity label, which would make it easy, but there are a few releases of notable artists who are independent of Fish. However, a search for reliable sources produced nothing at all. It would be nice if information could be retained in the Fish article somehow, because it is useful and non-controversial. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – As an addition to the nomination, I would prefer deletion and then redirection for this article, after an initial deletion. North America 1000 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mkdw talk 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Premier Lacrosse League

Premier Lacrosse League (  | 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 page has no references and so does not establish sports notability or general notability. Since the league has not yet begun playing, any claim of notability is either crystal ball gazing or based on pre-inaugural controversy (none described). Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Laxer921: I have added 11 highly creditable references to the page. Please consider the buzz and that the top 140 current professional players have signed contracts with this new league providing Salary, health benefits, 401K benefits, etc. It has generated the most buzz the Lacrosse community has seen and should be published. It was featured in Bloomberg, MSN, NBC Sports, Inside Lacrosse, US Lacrosse, Lacrosse Magazine, Business Journals, Barstool Sports. The founders were also interviewed on Wall Street. I recommend publishing the page.
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. Mkdw talk 22:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Lauren McAvoy

Lauren McAvoy (  | 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 fail to see how she passes the notability guidelines. Was unable to find reliable secondary sources coverage and the references listed have a YouTube video and a dead link article where judging by the title name, she is not even the focus. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 17:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 17:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Andreea Stancu

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

As a template dated almost 10 years ago clearly shows, this model simply does not have the notability for a Wikipedia article. There is only one “source” and that is FashionModelDirectory; we approach it like IMDb, it’s a database of work, but not a reliable source for the establishment of notability. There are no reliable sources for her on the Internet because I checked. This article should be deleted. Trillfendi ( talk) 17:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Chainsmokers. Mkdw talk 22:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Alex Pall

Alex Pall (  | 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 notability as an individual outside the music group. I recommend redirecting back to the group's article. Flooded with them hundreds 17:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Kristaps Nīmanis

Kristaps Nīmanis (  | 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:NHOCKEY as the player only participated in junior level national teams, not top tier senior teams. Player's pro career consists of only very minor leagues. No ref found that indicate this player otherwise meets WP:GNG. No reason given for the deprod. Yosemiter ( talk) 17:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. This clearly is not about to go anywhere. Because the nominator appears to be interested in something more akin to a merge than deletion, and only the actual deletion (i.e. hiding revisions) of a page requires a formal AfD, I would suggest that this question be further pursued on the list's talk page. (non-admin closure) — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 01:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Audie Murphy honors and awards

Audie Murphy honors and awards (  | 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 good reason for this, or anything like it, to be a separate article. Distill out any excess words, and merge it back into the bio. Qwirkle ( talk) 17:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Merger of articles isn’t done by deletion, but data from a nuked article might be brought over. Qwirkle ( talk) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
WP:WHENSPLIT is irrelevant here twice over. to begin with, that merely suggests desired sizes, and does not address what should be split off in detail. It does, however, explicitly make the point that splitting is pointless if it leads to excessive duplication...like it does here. Qwirkle ( talk) 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Yeah, this does highlight the inadequacy of the FA review process, but I don’t think this is the right venue to discuss that. Qwirkle ( talk) 18:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Of course. It performs no service to the reader. There is next to nothing in it that isn’t (quite rightly) in the main article on the subject. It is redundant. What does this add that couldnt be handled by a very small addition to the main article? Same words, same facts, same pretty little pictures, doubled. Qwirkle ( talk) 22:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Have you surveyed the 1,800 people who've looked at the page in the last two weeks to see if they found any use in the article? Or do simply you find no use for it? And tell me, where do you find a complete list of Murphy's awards in his biography that this article duplicates? Parsecboy ( talk) 23:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
This seems a far more relevant chart... Qwirkle ( talk) 00:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep without a shadow of a doubt but I would say remove the badges section as this about awards and honours. The marksman's badge is lower than the expert badge...16/30...and the expert badge doesn't seem to be particularly difficult either 26/30. (BTW I used to be an infantry officer and firearms instructor and represented Sandhurst in shooting before anyone jumps on me!) and the infantry combat badge was created to boost morale and awarded to all those that fought. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    Not all those who fought, only infantrymen. Due to the large numbers of decorations given out to others, particularly in the Air Corps, the infantry combat badge came to be more highly prized than many decorations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Sorry I should have said all infantrymen who fought. Do you know how many were given out during WWII? Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Draconus Entertainment

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

Unexpandable article for non notable company. Lacks significant coverage both in the article and in search. Totally fails WP:NCORP. No evidence of notability – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no sources that satisfy Sig Cov/Independent, both a failure of standard NCORP requirements as well as CORPDEPTH. I don't think redirecting the company to a single game would be suitable. Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 22:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Vishal Kampani

Vishal Kampani (  | 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 seeing how he passes WP:GNG Theroadislong ( talk) 16:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A WP:SPA article on a man with a job in the firm chaired by his father. There are brief items interviewing the subject in relation to his succession, such as [21], but I don't see these as sufficient to demonstrate individual WP:BASIC notability and we have no article on the company to provide a redirect target. AllyD ( talk) 19:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Someone is being paid to create one though here Draft:JM Financial as someone paid for this one I suspect. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mkdw talk 22:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Defense of the Redoute Ruinée

Defense of the Redoute Ruinée (  | 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 may well be a hoax as one source says it wasn't Italiens who were there in 1945 but German troops. [22] Another says that it was taken by the French on the 30th of April 1945 [23]. The soldiers that were allowed to leave with honours were the French in 1940 honoured by the Italiens and not the other way round. [24] Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless improved -- I do not know if this is a hoax or not, but it appears to be about two battles, one in 1940 and the other in 1945. If there was a 1945 battle, the Axis belligerent would have been acting in the name of a Nazi-puppet state, possibly against French or Italian partisans. Unless this can be split into two articles and clarified during the AFD period, I do not see how we can keep it. If the clarification and splitting is done, it may be better to merge it with the broader articles on the two conflicts. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No position on whether this article is accurate or the source reliable, but it is definitely not a hoax. The cited source is on gbooks. A statement from the Italian commander on page 427 aligns with many of the facts in the article. It confirms that the location was the Traversette, the date was April 1945, that the unit involved was the 4th Alpine Regiment, and that they were attacked by French Chasseurs. The following text confirms that these were forces of the RSI. Spinning Spark 17:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Have you been able to confirm the dates ? The sources I found talked about it the French flag flying over the position on the 30th of April and the article states that they held out until May 4th. One of the French sources on the main page [25] says that the whole department of the Alpes maritimes was free of enemy occupation by the 29th of April at a cost of 205 killed and 782 wounded whereas this article says that in this one episode there were more than 300 killed and 450 wounded. There seems to be some serious discrepancies between Carlotti and this source. Where does Carlotti say she gets her figures from? Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Here is the source that mentions that as of the 29th of April the redoute ruinée is in French hands. [26] Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Another source stating that it was taken on the 29th of April [27]. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
You'll have to read it yourself, I don't speak Italian and it is a pain transcribing it. Here's what I have; the commander of the platoon at the Traversette, Antonio Rossito, said he was ordered to hold to cover the retreat of the rest of the regiment and held out until 29 April. The regiment commander, Lt. Col. Armando Felice, seems to have been in some kind of negotiation with the partisan leader Augusto Adam, and according to Carlotti, they both viewed the invading French as a common enemy. Rossito wanted the partisans to provide logistic support so he could hold the front line. Adam refused this, but agreed that Felice could retreat slowly to Aosta (presumably unmolested by the partisans) in order to slow the French advance and hope the Anglo-American forces got there first. Spinning Spark 19:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Is there an online version? So the business of them holding out until May 4th is false? Another source that talks about it being occupied by "germano-italiens" of the 5th Gebirgsdivision and that it was taken on the 29th of April. [28]. It looks like the story told in the article is more or less romanticised or WP:OR. The French source says that this episode cost than lives of 90 chasseurs alpins which is a long way from the 300 claimed by the Italian source. Dom from Paris ( talk) 19:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I agree the event did happen as shown by the other sources that I found the only problem is that almost nothing of what is written about the 1945 event is supported by the sources. The casualty figures the fact that they held on until 4th of May and surrendered to the Americans and were allowed to walk out with military honours. It would be interesting to hear from the article creator User:Kuru666 as to where this information came from. Especially in light of their edits to a number of pages involving French/Italian conflicts. Dom from Paris ( talk) 22:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Domdeparis, Peterkingiron, and Spinningspark: I have rewritten the article. Most everything in it checked out, although I cannot tell for sure forom the sources I used (so far) exactly when the Italians left the fort or when the French occupied it. It was not surrendered to the French. The forces that had held it presumably surrendered to the Americans on 4 May at Aosta. Srnec ( talk) 03:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Good job. That said if we were to keep this article we would need to use French sources as well as it is clearly said in contemporary sources that the French flag flew on the redoute on the 29th of April. It also says that it was the 5th Gebirgsdivision that occupied the area. From what I can gather from the French sources the whole campaign in the area cost the lives of 90 Chasseurs Alpins including action in other skirmishes. This doesn't seem to have been a particularly important event compared to the event in 1940 where the Italians allowed the French to march out of the position with their arms. This looks like an effort to improve the image of the Italian army's action during the war by mixing fact and fantasy. I'm not part of the military history project and I shall let those that are decide if this is a notable enough incident to merit an article but it seems to me to be more than borderline as most of the information is purely routine. Dom from Paris ( talk) 06:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
That's the same impression I got; a POV job – brave Italian soldiers holding out against French agression despite the political collapse of Fascism. That's why I have held off with a "keep" so far. Spinning Spark 13:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mkdw talk 22:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Our Lady of Grace (Encino)

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

Notability LikeMeercats ( talk) 16:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The question at AfD is not whether the page is adequately sourced, the question id whether sources exist. For large, long-existing churches, they almost always do. Suggest that editors run WP:BEFORE using a news archive. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Except, of course, the (brief) Los Angeles Times article on the first anniversary of the church's founding in 1945 that was already on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

*Redirect - to Encino, Los Angeles#Education - insufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability under either the technical or the actually implemented rules for an elementary school. It's already listed as a school at the redirect target. @ Bkissin and LikeMeercats:, do you have any specific objection to it being a redirect rather than straight delete? Nosebagbear ( talk) 22:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Except, of course, for the fact that Our Lady of Grace, is NOT only a school, it is a large parish church. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
That was factored in, however I have cast a new vote below per the changes
Comment - Nosebagbear No objections on my part. Still learning the ropes here. Came across it as a "random article" and didn't seem like it fit as a part of Wikipedia. LikeMeercats ( talk) 23:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nosebagbear, No objections here. Redirect is definitely the better option. LikeMeercats, I'll explain on your talk page. Bkissin ( talk) 00:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
None of that actually provides justification for a keep. Sheer size isn't sufficient and either the older WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or the newer school notability rules provides automatic notability for an elementary school. Additionally, notability can't be inherited - notable alumni don't make the school notable. Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
But this is a large church. A church taht runs an elementary school. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Our Lady of Grace not only runs an elementary school. It is also the home parish of Crespi Carmelite High School; the high school and elementary school are both adjacent to the church, with mass for both schools held at the church. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) - As regards the priest misconduct article, I don't believe it meets independent (mostly repackaged quotes) or Sig Cov (not much detail about the school/church itself) Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Note that individual churches do not come under WP:NCORP , and that local and regional sources are acceptable to pass WP:GNG. This page just needs sourcing, and it make a week or two for editors to do that.
  • WP:HEY, As I wrote above, a large church, in a large edifice, can almost always be sourced. I have done a minor expand/source; much more material is available from which this article can be expanded. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. One of the largest Catholic parishes in Los Angeles with both a primary school and high school ( Crespi Carmelite High School) on its campus. Passes under WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: Article was unsourced when this AfD was launched in good faith. The article has since been expanded and has multiple sources and continues to grow. Accordingly, E.M.Gregory's invocation of The Heymann Standard is on point. Cbl62 ( talk) 13:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (change of !vote) per WP:HEY - my thanks to @ E.M.Gregory: and Cbl62 for their improvements. I was a little unsure as regards Sig Cov but a couple of the sources that I can't see have titles so on point I'll trust on E.M.Gregory's reputation that they are suitable. Nosebagbear ( talk) 18:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
thank you. WP:BEFORE is difficult because so many 20th century WP:RS are behind paywalls - or not archived at all. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: Can you clarify if you are now a "keep". Your unbolded "probably keep" may be viewed as amibiguous. Thanks. Cbl62 ( talk) 20:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Rollo Armstrong. Outside of four links in the external links section, the article is otherwise unsourced. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Cheeky Records

Cheeky Records (  | 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 record label that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Could be redirected to Rollo Armstrong. North America 1000 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – Regardless of how the company may be "interesting", and name checks it gets from working with various artists, there appears to be no significant coverage ever published about the company itself in independent, reliable sources. Said source coverage is typically required to qualify notability for Wikipedia's purposes. North America 1000 14:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Michig's comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 16:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Notability. What I ate for dinner last night is also interesting but doesn't warrant a wikipedia article LikeMeercats ( talk) 16:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Hello LikeMeercats and Welcome to Wikipedia. It is unusual to find new editors at AfD and very impressive that your 15th edit was to nominate an article for deletion and your 17th edit made here. Just FYI, comments like the above may be ignored by the closer of the AfD as it does not provide sufficient reasoning with reference to policy/guidelines (e.g. WP:ORGIND or WP:GNG, etc). Also, on occasion an alternative to deletion is preferable. If you need any help shout out. HighKing ++ 11:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
      • Comment HighKing Thank you for the info and links! A pet peeve of mine has always been these seemingly random/unnecessary pages that pop up and detract from being able to use Wikipedia as legitimate of a source as possible - thought I should get involved and help! Those links are super helpful though, thank you. LikeMeercats ( talk) 18:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Joseph A. Amato

Joseph A. Amato (  | 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 individual. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR, does not pass WP:GNG. Existing content is somewhat promotional and there are off-wiki indications that the article subject and/or his representative has contributed to it substantially. Yunshui  雲 水 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Here are a few more reviews: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Thsmi002 ( talk) 17:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
David, Fantastic job incorporating the reviews into the article! Thsmi002 ( talk) 18:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 ( talk) 22:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kristine Kathryn Rusch. Mkdw talk 22:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The Fey Series

The Fey Series (  | 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:BEFORE searches, this book series does not meet WP:BOOKCRIT. Not finding adequate coverage/reviews to qualify an article. Could be redirected to Kristine Kathryn Rusch. North America 1000 10:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 14:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Whilst some of the sourcing here is routine, there are several examples presented here and in the article itself which go beyond routine transfer talk or match reporting providing significant coverage of the player his career and his opinions. Fenix down ( talk) 08:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Aaron McEneff

Aaron McEneff (  | 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:NFOOTY. Derry is a rare example of a professional club in Ireland but their league isn't, and that's the criteria for notability. The article doesn't indicate the McEneff's achievements within this semi-professional league are of a high enough calibre to pass WP:GNG either Harambe Walks ( talk) 15:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Chima Dozie

Chima Dozie (  | 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 WP:NFOOTY and GNG. Media coverage is routine. BlameRuiner ( talk) 15:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. This a merge proposal, which should be discussed on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Michig ( talk) 17:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The Game of Love (Daft Punk song)

The Game of Love (Daft Punk song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet WP:NSONG and I don't see how the content can't be merged into the respective album. Therefore, I nominate for a merge to Random Access Memories. – The Grid ( talk) 14:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. – The Grid ( talk) 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and leave redirect to Random Access Memories - this wasn't a charted single, or any kind of single, and there's no indication that the song passes WP:GNG by being the subject of several in-depth pieces independent of album reviews or profiles of the artist Harambe Walks ( talk) 15:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Karim Moumban

Karim Moumban (  | 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 WP:NFOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner ( talk) 12:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - although the claim that he gained 100 caps for Cameroon and played in the 1990 World Cup is a demonstrable lie, this article does claim that he played professionally in a range of countries and was capped. As yet, though, I haven't found anything else to confirm these claims..... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 19:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Delete I believe this guy exists but my gut is telling me that his playing career is a complete lie. Less so on his coaching career, Govvy ( talk) 22:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete he could be notable per WP:NFOOTY for playing for short-lived Crystal Palace Baltimore but it's currently basically an unsourced WP:BLP and needs to go. Also fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 09:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article about football player who played indoor soccer in the US and appears to have played semi-pro football in Cameroon and El Salvador (and potentially elsewhere). The Examiner article indicates he was a member of the Cameroon national team in 1989, but RSSSF has a pretty good listing of Cameroon's "A" international match reports for 1989 and there is no mention of him (it wouldn't surprise me if he made the bench as a reserve goalkeeper though). If he actually played professionally in France or elsewhere, we ought to be able to see some mentions of that. Rather, it looks like he had a journeyman's career in semi-pro leagues and possibly was a top goalkeeper prospect when he was playing in the Cameroon top flight. The article is full of hyperbole and unsourced claims, and needs to be stubified if for some reason it is kept. Jogurney ( talk) 18:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per Jogurney's reasoning. 21.colinthompson ( talk) 23:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Nelapr Omebb

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

None of these "entities" (or angels or what have you) are actually described in any detail in any of the cited sources. At best, they're given brief single-sentence descriptions of their functions, but that's not sufficient to maintain articles about. On top of that, the sources are hardly very reliable, being practical works intended to teach the use of Enochian magic, not secondary sources reflecting on the topic. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The fact that these articles have existed for years without evolving past stubs argues for they being non-notable topics, I would have said redirect to Enochian magic, but they're not even mentioned there, so delete seems like a better option. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 1 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. I'm not sure if the keep arguments are strong enough to support a clear "keep" closure, but there's certainly no support for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Skam Records

AfDs for this article:
Skam Records (  | 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:BEFORE searches, this is a non-notable record label that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I added a basic reference from an article in The Wire 176. Issue 167 of the same magazine has a review of two of their compilations, around 1/4 page in length. The same publication has various passing mentions over the years, and maybe a more substantial review in July 2018, but I don't have that issue to hand. Not enough for notability on their own, but support if other sources can be located. AllyD ( talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Coverage also from CMJ New Music Monthly - [48], [49]. The label is sufficiently significant for inclusion I think. -- Michig ( talk) 20:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consideration of additional sourcing, with at least an indication of a keep by one participant. Certainly there seem sufficient grounds for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - decent writeup about the company in CMJ, the second by CMJ is useful, but probably not in-depth enough to help establish notability. Combined with Wire writeup, this seems to barely pass GNG. According to CMJ the label has had a noticeable cultural impact within its genre. It has been around awhile (more than 25 years, significant for a record label) and has a roster of notable artists, so meets inverse-logic of NMUSIC#5. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 13:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Antinomy of Common Flowers

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

Video game doesn't meet WP:GNG. Part of Touhou Project, so could potentially be merged with that article, but not sure if that is suitible here. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

The deletion (and merging to Touhou Project main article should make the main article absurdly long with no reason, since it needs to be cover every single game (actually are 26 official games, being 16 main (candinal) games and 10 spin-off games), So I don't agree with the deletion of the article Jose8122 ( talk) 11:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply

We shouldn't simply have an article simply because another article is too long, if the subject isn't notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The game is too recent to have too many information like Embodiment of Scarlet Devil or Imperishable Night, since the lore included in this article is shared with the concomitant print-works (like Fairy Wars, which is complementary to Touhou Sangetsusei), in this case Wild and Horned Hermit and Forbidden Scrollery and partially audio-cds. The article is notable, but complete and is completed by the side works Jose8122 ( talk) 02:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
You don't seem to understand what notability is. All articles on wikipedia need to be on a subject that passes some sort of notability criteria, such as WP:GNG. An article on a subject that has been recently released isn't a valid argument for it being kept. Articles should be on notable subjects; and if the subject will become notable over time, then it fails WP:TOOSOON, or WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, video games are different, as most of the press is when a game is released. This article fails WP:GNG; and should potentially be a hard redirect to Touhou Project. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Is Theosophy a Religion?

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

An article about an apparently non-notable 10 page article similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occult or Exact Science?. The page has extensive references, but none of it seems to establish notability - there appears to be zero significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. It has as some trivial mentions in a couple of PhD theses and a section in another PhD thesis. Beyond the general notability guidelines, none of the WP:SNG seem to apply. tronvillain ( talk) 13:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I think it is unlikely that this essay (which is what it is, rather than an encyclopedic article) will be sufficiently supported by mainstream sources to achieve notability in WP terms. That being said, it is my considered belief that this is one of the exceptions that Jimmy Wales speaks of in his concept idea, "Break all rules." I came here looking for clarification about modern (Blavatskyan) theosophy (which is normally NOT capitalized unless referring to a particular organization's doctrine, and there are several), and I personally find the essay quite helpful in that regard. My understanding is that by policy Wikipedia aims to inform and facilitate readers of no more than highschool education, at which level almost all readers would be inquiring for the first time about the subject. My overall response is to KEEP. rags ( talk) 18:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I think you could achieve as much or more by merging into Theosophy (Blavatskian), without having to ignore WP:N. --17:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. tronvillain ( talk) 13:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 22:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Preserve content, at least in part. I'm almost tempted to say merge, but I won't because I'm not personally prepared to undertake it. If this editorial was an important milestone in the history of Lucifer (magazine) then there should be some coverage there, but there isn't (other than a see also). If it was an important milestone in the thinking of Helena Blavatsky, then her article should have some coverage, but there is not even a mention. If it was an important milestone in the development of [Theosophy (Blavatskian)]] then there should be some coverage there, but there isn't. It doesn't look like a standalone page is entirely justified but the material has some merit. The close should therefore be "keep with no restriction on future merging or other refactoring". Spinning Spark 13:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Theosophy - there's definitely reliably sourced content here but I'm indifferent as to whether it needs an independent article. Simonm223 ( talk) 15:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, historically significant explanatory article. Well referenced and sourced, it was included in Blavasky's collected writings volume. Randy Kryn ( talk) 08:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst the goal.com source is relatively in depth coverage of the player, i dontvthink it is sufficient to satisfy gng on it's own g8ven the only other source of in depth coverage presented is a short lived wordpress blog, with the other two sources being only passing mentions. Happy to have this restored if more in depth coverage can be found at a later date. Fenix down ( talk) 08:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Eze Collins

Eze Collins (  | 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 WP:NFOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner ( talk) 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Thenextweb

Thenextweb (  | 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 in depth coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG. The event hosted by this website might be notable if the claim that it receives more than 12,000 visitors is true, but the sources [55] [56] claiming that do not appear to be reliable, as they are promotional and one of them is a Huffington Post blog post. I tried to find coverage of the event in reliable sources and couldn't find anything, but perhaps a Dutch-speaking editor could turn up something.
Previously nominated for PROD by DGG, Deprod by Kvng, claiming that the sources cited above demonstrate notability. signed, Rosguill talk 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Falling Gravity 02:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Falling Gravity 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Here is my assessment of the sources;
    • ref#1 (Alexa): "We don't have enough data to rank this website"
    • ref#2 (Entrepreneur): It's an inverview with the founder, so not independent for the purpose of establishing notability
    • ref#3 (Huff Post): This is a blog, so not considered RS. Besides, the article is about the conference, not the website, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED
    • ref#4 (Silicon Canals): Article about the conference, not the website.
On that basis, the website is not notable. The conference seems to be of some importance (from gbooks, for instance "The Next Web conference is known as one of the best networking events in Europe") but it is hard to see how that can be worked up into a worthwile article. It is easier to cover this in other articles rather than as a standalone. However, I'm at a loss to say where. We have a category for this, but no main article or list. Perhaps it's time to create one. Spinning Spark 10:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Spinningspark: There is a typo in the Alexa citation in the article. If corrected, [ https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thenextweb.com the report says 5,868 global rank, and 3,074 US. — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 21:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

List of New York City Public School Alumni

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

A nearly indiscriminate list of alumni of a school SYSTEM with the potential of becoming too big to handle The Banner  talk 10:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down ( talk) 08:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Edvaldo Della Casa

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

Autobiographical article about footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner ( talk) 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Ad Dayt

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

These are the last three of these so I'm going to treat myself to a good old fashioned AfD. Article fails WP:V, GNG and GEOLAND. Pin points to an area of newly reclaimed land, Al Dana, at Sharm. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 09:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Yes, Natureium - it's from the same hopelessly antiquated and badly transliterated source. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Delete. WP:V I found that questionable source when googling some of these but not others. Strange. Natureium ( talk) 11:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Need a better rationale than the notion that foreign language sources probably meet GNG. Happy to restore if someone can provide reliable quotes indicating that the links below go beyond routine match reporting. Fenix down ( talk) 08:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Banbueng Kradon School F.C.

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

Searching for sources including "สโมสรฟุตบอลโรงเรียนบ้านบึงกระโดน", I do not see this semi professional club is passing WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 09:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Bani 'Udayd

Bani 'Udayd (  | 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:V, GNG and GEOLAND. This and the below articles are given as 'tribal areas of Ras Al Khaimah', but they're actually supposedly tribal names, bani meaning 'tribe of' in Arabic (literally 'sons of'). They're all badly transliterated and all highly dubious as tribes, let alone as locations. We're better off starting with a clean, sourced list of tribal names but these are NOT places or 'legally recognised settlements' and are NOT recognised tribal names of the UAE today. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Bani Zaydah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Salimi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Sa'ad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Rayyil (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Jum'ah (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Huraymish (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Bani Bakhit (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Halima Begum

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

Civil servant, not close to passing GNG. Sources in the article are a listing in a British-Bangladeshi list and a speaker profile at Internationalising Higher Education. Note that this is an extremely common name - there is a Malaysian academic with the same name( [74]), and news coverage of various other individuals with this name - [75] [76] [77] [78]. In my BEFORE, I was not able to find much more than a few random quotes of this individual. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • delete there are a lot of women named Halima Begum in the world (searching in Latin alphabet). This is the one with a piddling 886 twitter followers (not a valid metric, but when I see 60,000 followers for a policy wonk I've never heard of, I take it as a hint that I should be able to find sources.) Problem is, scanning the hits, even using keywords, I'm not finding anything to support notability. She appears to be what the page indicates that she is, a non-notable British ecpert on economic development. There are only 3 sources on the page, a potted speaker's bio; a website celebrating British Bangladeshis; and a dead link to something called, "British Bangladeshi Power & Inspiration." Fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Plain GNG fail; even the article cannot tell what is she notable for. -- nafSadh did say
  • Delete No evidence, let alone references, for notability. Other people in the 'Civil servants in the Department for International Development' category have been governors, won awards, published extensively, or were permanent secretaries, and/or now hold higher posts. The subject of this article has done none of these things, and the article reads like a CV or organisational profile. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 15:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Epromos.com

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

This article was created as a promo / advertorial by an SPA. It also seems native advertising in violation of the wikipedia's paid editing terms of service. So it should be deleted for that violation.

Looking content and references wise, the article still fails WP:GNG and lacks indepth third party references. Whatever that exists out there is either PR, paid news bare mentions or partner profiles. Not notable at all and wikipedia is not a corporate directory. So please delete. Jesve Psernel ( talk) 05:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 10:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article, with a WP:PROD subsequently removed by the article creator. The references then added and now available are routine run-of-the-mill coverage, as are the best-places-to-work and industry awards. There is also a brief quotation from the company founder in association with a media item about promotional scooters 18 years ago, but I see no WP:RS coverage sufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. AllyD ( talk) 10:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dpkg. After 2 relistings, the consensus is to merge into the software from which it was cloned. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Wpkg

Wpkg (  | 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 appears to only be primary sources present, the best secondary coverage I could drudge up was some news reports about Chinese netizens being redirected to their site after logging in with facebook involving an overseas hack [3], other than that, there doesn't appear to be much coverage, about the topic directly, so mostly just WP:GNG. AtlasDuane ( talk) 15:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Blockchain Quick Reference: A guide to Exploring Decentralized Blockchain". amazon.com. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  2. ^ "Blockchain Quick Reference: A guide to Exploring Decentralized Blockchain". books.google.com. Retrieved 23 October 2018.
  3. ^ Wester, Michael. "What the Heck is wpkg.org, and Why Are We Being Redirected to It? | the Beijinger". Retrieved 10 October 2018.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: to dpkg. I think I am roughly on the same lines as Newslinger ... anything more than a one or two line section would be disruption to the target and worse than not merging. I've added a passing independent ref to the article which would help support the merge. I think I would like current page turned into a DAB because of a likely need to disambiguate to avoid confusion ... in fact the existance of two similarly named but confusingly different packages in the same space is driving me towards this approach. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I'd really like to be on absolutely on top of the difference between wpkg and WPKG. Simply looking at 1 and 2 may relate to WPKG ... I findmyself saying may though. (Wring this the 2nd points to WPKG so that sorts that one). It may be WPKG needs to be improved. I have become in a rush so I apologise for this this line but feel it is relevant. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 13:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The sources presented here aren't the best, but some people feel they're adequate to meet WP:GNG. My suggestion is for people to spend some more time researching and watching to see if more/better sources appear. If in six or twelve months time, it still looks like WP:TOOSOON applies, it can always be brought back for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Hasraf Dulull

Hasraf Dulull (  | 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 director, no in-depth coverage at reliable sources, does not satisfy WP:GNG. One of his films won what appears to be a non-notable award: "Atlanta Sci-fi Film Festival's Jury Award for Best Sci-fi Feature Film", does not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Previously nominated for PROD, blocked by the article creator another editor who promised to provide more references, so far has just provided [79] which does not appear to be a RS. signed, Rosguill talk 23:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment First, some errors in the nom. I removed the prod, but I am not the article's creator. AJC is a RS with 800 results in WP. I removed the prod because it was almost at 7 days and I wanted a chance to look at it. I added one RS to improve the article and saw there were others. Second, the article had the wrong spelling for the name (and has a nickname) so that might have caused issues with refs. I haven't decided my view about notability yet. StrayBolt ( talk) 08:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
My apologies, I'll correct the statement. signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - finding some reasonable coverage in reliable sources such as [80], [81], [82], plus this one which is an interview with Katee Sackhoff where they talk a bit about him...not sure how reliable it is as a source. I'd say these plus the Atlanta Journal-Constitution article are enough to establish notability for Mr. Dulull. CThomas3 ( talk) 03:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
I've been adding to The Beyond (2017 film) and maybe some of those refs could be used here. StrayBolt ( talk) 05:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. The sources suggested here do provide some passing coverage, but not enough to justify an article (or indeed to write one). It looks as if he may be making a reputation for himself; let's wait until he does that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Weak keep - Deadline and the Empire source give me the impression he no longer fits into WP:TOOSOON. Isingness ( talk) 02:20, 1 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. Mkdw talk 21:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Headwrecker Records

Headwrecker Records (  | 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 record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH, per source searching. North America 1000 15:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Fällt

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

After several WP:BEFORE source searches, it is evident that this publishing house fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 1000 16:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Gringo Records

Gringo Records (  | 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:BEFORE source searches, which have only provided fleeting passing mentions and name checks, this record label fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. North America 1000 16:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 16:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There's two basic camps here, with blurred lines between them. One camp says we don't need this level of detailed information at all in the encyclopedia. The other camp wants to keep it, but can't figure out if it belongs in the main article or not. Leaving this spun out as a fork seems like a reasonable middle ground. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC) reply

List of teams promoted from the 1. divisjon and predecessors

List of teams promoted from the 1. divisjon and predecessors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. The topic in and of itself does not appear notable. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • @ Reitimwinkl: Maybe consider mentioning the promotion in each team's article, and then Creating a category to add the articles to. Check out Wikipedia's guidelines on categories to see how to do this. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cymru.lass: the club's promotions are already, or shall be, mentioned in each clubs article. The category you are suggesting is i.e. "1. divisjon champions" ? However, I strongly recommend that a list of champions in the Norwegian second tier exists. This list has also very limited ammount of teams, with a defined beginning in 1963 and in the future only promoted teams and play-off teams (maximum 6 teams in total) will be added. It is very easy to understand and update for all users. Like SportingFlyer writes further down on this page; a list of champions of a professional football league definitely suggests notability. Reitimwinkl ( talk 17:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would suggest merging to 1. divisjon, but this table serves as a valid fork as that article only keeps the winners for the past 20 years, and moving it back would significantly increase the article size. Also, WP:LISTCRUFT is very broad - but the list of champions of a professional football league definitely suggests notability. There's a lot of information out there about Norwegian football... SportingFlyer talk 07:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tiswas#Series 6. Sandstein 10:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Matthew Butler (Tiswas)

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

nn, single source, one off child-performer fancruft Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 19:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Dominic Brigstocke

Dominic Brigstocke (  | 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 could not find the coverage to meet WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn ( talk) 20:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

  • KEEP. The RS issue was first flagged in 2017. But on the basis of Brigstocke's career, might I argue some caution with the deletion proposal? This person has been one of the driving forces behind many of the most successful programmes on British television for nearly 30 years (at least from when he worked on Alas Smith and Jones in the 1980s). Importantly, unlike some directors in film and television, Brigstocke's credit of "director" does not remotely express his substantial contribution in bringing these shows about, see e.g. here.
As I have a COI it is probably better I not get too involved (although I do not know Brigstocke personally, the company I work for employed him back in the 1990s) but I would be happy to look out some supporting material, which is most likely to be found in sources not easily accessible, eg the specialist journals which cover the UK tv business. However I am superbusy for the next weeks, so I would ask that you delay any proposed deletion until (say) the end of November, by which time I should have been able to find something (after all the page has been pretty stable for more than ten years so there seems to be no great urgency). AnOpenMedium ( talk) 08:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Confused?. Incidentally, the article Dominic Brigstocke already has numerous sources, assuming tv programmes provide their own sources. According to this discussion, they do. This is not quite the same as the notability question, but thought I should add a possible reason why past editors may not have felt it necessary to add links to older media. AnOpenMedium ( talk) 08:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I've refactored your comments into a more conventional form. There is no need for a new sub-heading for every comment, that just clutters up the contents list. You are right that the program credits can be used to verify the participants of a work. However, it is still necessary to say that is where the information was sourced from. No one should put that in as a source unless they have checked that Brigstocke does indeed appear in the credits. Until that happens, it is unsourced. You are also right that it would mean nothing for notability anyway. It is not significant coverage, and it is not independent. Spinning Spark 10:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Much as I would like to keep this one, I'm not seeing enough to justify it. Clive James gives Brigstocke a page or two in Blaze of Obscurity, but it is in the context of an inexperienced young director with some bright ideas that James does not agree with. James does not highlight Brigstocke as a notable person who went on to have a glittering career. He is just one more colourful person with which to decorate his autobiography. Standard fare for such books. James may as well have been talking about a bus conductor he met in Piccadilly Circus. More than that is needed to keep this article. At the moment it is just a list of credits, material more suited to IMdB than here. Spinning Spark 11:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I am just not able to find any significant coverage for this subject at all (in the article, the first is a passing mention of one line and the other is not even about him), so he automatically fails WP:GNG just like the nom said. The article is basically just listing his directorial jobs without anything that contributes to the person itself and is even in shape for a soft WP:TNT to be honest. Wikipedia is not meant to be a IMDB mirror. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 22:52, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. My own searching failed to find anything that satisfies WP:DIRECTOR. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 3 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. Mkdw talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Chris Field (UK musician)

Chris Field (UK musician) (  | 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 appear to be a notable musician. Can't find any sources for most of the info in the article. It's possible to find archived versions of their site (now deleted) that state a few things but this fails WP:PRIMARY. Albums etc appear completely non-notable and can't find him mentioned in anything notable. Has the feeling of a vanity page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The only thing that qualifies as a reliable source is an AllMusic review of his first album back in 2002 – there doesn't seem to be anything else at all which would serve as a source, either reliable or unreliable. The first two albums were self-released, the third was on a small Toronto-based label which currently only has five acts signed to it, and I'm guessing the fourth album in 2011 was self-released as well, seeing as the subject was a Beatles obsessive and the record label name "Warmgun" sounds like it was taken from " Happiness Is a Warm Gun" and I can find no other releases on this label. No sources at all for any of the biographical details, or the name-dropping. Richard3120 ( talk) 14:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anastacia. Redirect semi-protected for one year Mkdw talk 21:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Evolution Tour (Anastacia)

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

As seen in this article's history, it has been redirected to the singer's article several times, but then reverted several times. Those who resurrect the article are typically IP editors. The named editors who redirected to the singer have cited that media coverage of the tour has been routine, which means that it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:NTOUR. Bringing it to AfD to settle the conflict once and for all. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 14:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
That has already been done several times and IP editors keep reverting it. That will happen again unless the article is permanently deleted, or some sort of WP:SALT process is invoked to prevent more reverts. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 13:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 21:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Noy Vanneth

Noy Vanneth (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · 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)

A singer who does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC, as per source searching. North America 1000 12:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Tentative keep, but I will get back in a few days with a solid yea or nay based on what I find on internet. I will say that Google searches of Cambodian content are iffy at best. Google translate does a bad job currently and that also makes searching Cambodian web pages difficult. Jacqke ( talk) 13:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. North America 1000 12:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply

DJ Olive

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Assorted source searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article. North America 1000 11:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is enough coverage about him out there.
egs
Tutkai, Rod (15 February 2007), "DJ BRINGS HIS GLOBAL VISION TO GALLERY GIG", Taranaki Daily News
"new york GETS kooky", The Cairns Post, 25 January 2007
An review of Triage (Room40)
Sasson, Chloe (3 January 2009), "Electronic", The Sydney Morning Herald
Concert review, Matt Haimovitz, cello, Geoff Burleson, piano, DJ Olive, electronics & turntables
Sasson, Chloe (3 January 2009), "It's got two turntables and a cello, piano combo", The Globe and Mail
also
allmusic 2 3 4 5
popmatters igloo magazine 2 exclaim!
Multiple countries. Enough for GNG. Two albums on Sub Rosa might also be good for MUSIC. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC) reply
North America, worth a withdraw? duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. dewiki has its own inclusion criteria and it is not necessarily clear it's been vetted over there. On the English Wikipedia we require significant coverage and WP:BURDEN or more sources in conducting a WP:BEFORE have not resulted in any discussion or support for keeping the article. Mkdw talk 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Tefla and Jaleel

Tefla and Jaleel (  | 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 source searches, this group does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. North America 1000 10:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Mkdw talk 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Cold Night for Alligators

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

non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC RF23 ( talk) 07:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga ( talk) 03:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdw talk 20:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC) reply

David Fitzgerald (author)

David Fitzgerald (author) (  | 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 self-published author who only writes on a WP:FRINGE theory, that there was never such a person as Jesus, an idea with zero academic credibility. The only sources are closely connected to the subject. Smeat75 ( talk) 00:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 03:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 03:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_October_24&oldid=1142615195"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE