Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 15: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:58, 15 October 2018

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 October	16 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Salim Khan

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

I have nominated this article for deletion since it started as a mostly unsourced promo attempt later turning into somewhat negative article about a living person. I do not think that the subject is notable as yet. There's no indept coverage, and WP:GNG is not satisfied. Bare mentions in news do not make a personality notable.

Further, WP:NPOLITICIAN isn't satisfied two fold 1) because he is not a former member of the GB assembly rather a disqualified member. A former member is a person who has held the office in a previous term and the term has expired. This is the case of a disqualified member. So the criteria for being a former member isn't met, 2) because WP:NPOLITICIAN applies to members of a national, state or a provincial parliament. Gilgit-Baltistan Parliament, in question, is none of these because GB is not a province, rather a disputed territory that has some degree of autonomy.

Given that this article can only be promotional or filled with BLP issues, without imparting any value to wiki, CSD criteria G10, G11 and A7 apply. However, the CSD was declined probably because of disruption going on before hand. So I will like this to go through the AFD process and let the wikipedia policy prevail. 103.255.7.34 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP request to nominate this AfD in WT:AFD, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gilgit-Baltistan was given self government status and as such its parliament counts as a regional parliament as it is a second tiers of government as per Administrative units of Pakistan. As such its members of parliament and former members easily pass the criteria. A disqualified member is still a former member. This is clearly an attempt by COI editorS to first create a promo article and then remove negative information and simply for that reason it should be kept as per WP:PROUD. There was some unsourced promo stuff I removed that could be added again and tagged as needing citations to balance out the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passesWP:NPOL and WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources, as set out above this seems to be an attempt to hide inconvenient truths, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For sure, but I am VERY concerned about the allegation of default and removal which is ONLY stood up by a news source which makes a claim which the target denies and then cites a primary source - a PDF purporting to be a court document, which is a direct contravention of WP:BLP "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Suggest this material be removed immediately. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have used it unless it had already been discussed in secondary sources and thought that it could be used to augment the secondary sources as per WP:BLPPRIMARY as it was being called fake news. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandermcnabb: I have added another secondary source that directly talks about the court order to "de-seat" the subject. so I think the primary source can be used to augment this in light of the accusation that this is fake news. The parliament's web site also shows no name for his district. [1]. There are sources that say he was elected sources that say he was disqualified but none that show he is still a sitting member so I think it is reasonable to keep the information about him having been disqualified. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: Or give him the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty) and mention the rumour/denial/confusion but wait for someone to provide a decent cite/source. The PDF for sure is not in line with WP:BLP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a total of three different secondary news sources that report his disqualification by the SUPREME APPELLATE COURT, GILGIT-BALTISTAN so I think there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that he has been disqualified. Whilst trying to find some positive stuff to say about him I found another story about his father having had him and his brother arrested over fake documents in a property feud [2] [3] one of which also mentions that he was disqualified...I don't think I shall be adding this as per WP:UNDUE. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're certainly a colourful bunch up there in Gilgit... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article is not really about a notable person if he was disqualified. I agree with the nominator that he is only newsworthy, not wiki worthy and should not have an article. Hassankhanonline (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)— Hassankhanonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There's absolutely no precedent regarding WP:NPOL and "disqualified" members. A bit of a tricky one to figure out, but he was elected and then lost his seat due to a technicality - even if he never served, I believe the coverage would pass WP:GNG anyways (though I concur about removing the court transcript, stated above.) SportingFlyer talk 10:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say that he held the seat for at least a year before being disqualified so there is nothing to suggest he didn't serve. I don't have a problem with the removal of the court document as there are 3 different sources that mention his disqualification so long no one is trying to pretend that this is fake news now. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it. If he served for a year, I think he passes WP:NPOL. I don't see the WP:PROMO fail. SportingFlyer talk 11:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, based on the history of the page, it seems as there's controversy as to whether he was actually disqualified or not? It's quite confusing. SportingFlyer talk 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was one editor that was trying to claim that he had not been disqualified and said that it was fake news added by his enemies and then when presented with the court document they tried to pretend that there had been new elections 2 weeks after the court's decision and that he had been relected. I don't think there is any doubt now that he was elected and then disqualified there are enough secondary sources (3 seperate news publications). --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holding the seat for a length of time and then being disqualified is not an NPOL fail — if he sat in the legislature, then he's still notable even if his election was later overturned. Once a person has been declared elected to the legislature, the only valid grounds for deletion after that is if an immediate recount reverses the result before the new government even gets formally sworn into power in the first place. If he gets sworn in and holds the seat for any length of time after that, then the election being overturned or disqualified at a later date, regardless of grounds, does not undo the fact that he still spent time sitting in the legislature as a member. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First Bench

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

Unremarkable local company. Lacking persistence and depth of independent coverage, therefore failing WP:NCORP. The Hindu quote is actually a statement from the founder, therefore not independent. Also, the entire article is marked as sponsored contents, thus likely advertorial. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As lacking significant 3rd party coverage independent and reliable coverage. Subject does not meet WP:NCORP. By way of omission, it is less promocruft than versions deleted by myself and SoWhy. No improvement in sourcing or notability, though. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP Accesscrawl (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips Umbubu

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

Non notable subject that clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G3, blatant and obvious misinformation. Bakazaka (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G3 as a hoax. Ah, yes, "captain of the Ghanaian Tiddlywinks team" and "Umbubu announced his retirement from competitive Tiddlywinks on 5th March 2015, citing arthritis in his left hand as the main reason for ending his career." you gotta love the creativity! Notice how the article started out saying
Phillips Patrick Solomon Umbubu is a retired tiddlywinks player
only to change the intro to read
Phillips Michael Kobena Umbubu is a retired tiddlywinks player
While a Phillips Michael Kobena exists and a Phillips Umbubu exists, all searches confirm that no person named Phillips Michael Kobena Umbubu ever existed, let alone one playing Tiddlywinks. I am accordingly going to tag the article with {{db-hoax}}. Sam Sailor 15:46, 22 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) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Farrell

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

Footballer who fails WP:FOOTY and GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having not played in a professional league and no established sign of extraordinary achievement in the Irish leagues to pass WP:GNG Harambe Walks (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, as per all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG per nom. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:06, 17 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Chemicals

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

Self promotional spam for Non notable initiative. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has multiple sources but half are ref bombed Fictitious references that do not support the quote they are connected to. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence it is notable, none of the cited references even mention the initiative. Google search turns up a little bit of local news/routine coverage but nothing that constitutes notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 21:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage in independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 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 keep. Withdrawn for now as there could be more sources after a week. (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 11:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus (Martin Garrix EP)

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

Non-notable unreleased EP, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM due to the lack of significant coverage and sources are mostly blogs and press releases. Flooded with them hundreds 07:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. None of them are press releases, and if they were blogs and not reliable, then why did you cite one of them (thegroovecartel.com) on Martin Garrix discography when you added the information to that page? Seemed to be just fine when you used it but now it's not? Edm.com and youredm.com are industry websites, and djmag.de is the German website for the publication DJ Mag, hardly a "blog". So it does meet the first criterion of WP:NMUSIC for coverage (they're not trivial mentions, and are independent of the material). It's not surprising that I had your redirect deleted to create an article, and now you're nominating it for deletion. Seems quite vindictive to me; I noticed Seven (EP) uses the same websites and you've edited that quite a few times but that passed your standards...Hmm, that's odd. Coverage will only grow, particularly when it's released in full on 19 October. If it doesn't happen, then I'll redirect it myself. At the least this will not be deleted, but redirected, but good luck with your crusade. Ss112 07:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your EDM, DJ Mag, Dancing Astronaut are reliable but in this case they do not significantly discuss the EP so the GNG isn't satisfied. The creation of this stub is clearly an attempt of retaliation and is only done to prevent me from creating it. Flooded with them hundreds 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliation for what, exactly? Another scenario you'll accuse me of but have no evidence for? I'm allowed to have a redirect you created deleted and create an article over it. You don't have claim over something just because you like the subject matter or made a redirect for it. Nobody does. Edm.com must be reliable too; you appear to have used it on your recently created Visceral (album) article as well? You used thegroovecartel to add the information to Martin Garrix discography, so I assume you think it's reliable too unless, of course, for the purposes of this argument your opinion has changed in less than 24 hours? Ss112 08:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 15 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3DMet

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

Unclear, even after asking creator, how this in any way meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notified WT:CHEMISTRY, {{Chembox}} (talk) -DePiep (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, based entirely on a single primary reference. Somebody needs to care that it exists other than the people who created/run it, and there is no indication that is the case. That it exists in not sufficient. Unless it is referred to in, say, a review article detailing some of the available biochemical structure databases, it just isn't notable. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous comments.Rogermx (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 3DMet database site itself is the RS. Some 126 other articles refer to it [4]. Similar to most of Category:Chemical databases (49). For example, PubChem is sourced by reference #1 to ... PubChem. - DePiep (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Other Wikipedia articles refer to it, because a template makes that easy. That doesn't count for so much. The article on PubChem has secondary sources from other organizations, in additions to links to PubChem itself. The journal article introducing 3DMet has only 10 citations on Google Scholar and 4 on Web of Science, compared to 1,015 GS citations and 683 by the publisher's database for the journal article introducing PubChem. This doesn't speak to 3DMet being widely influential. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The RL database is the source (as I wrote), not the wiki article. Nothing WP:CIRCULAR. And other articles do refer to it (i.e., to the database not the article) not because it is "easy" (?!), but because it is the source. Now since you have access to the 14 citations, please add them and we're done. Then, "not ... widely" is not an argument for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize if I was unclear. There are not 14 sources. Everything listed in Web of Science is included in the Google Scholar list (the latter search service tends to be more radically inclusive, scraping PDFs from everywhere it can find them, and listing items regardless of peer review status). Nor do the sources really help to establish notability. "Review of natural product databases" and "Many InChis and quite some feat" give it barely a mention. Ditto "Public Databases of Plant Natural Products for Computational Drug Discovery". And the other article I can find through Web of Science is by the creators of 3DMet themselves, so it's not an independent source. I'm sorry, but there just isn't a lot here to work with. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, to establish notability you need reliable sources independent of the subject. You can cite the subjects themselves in a limited sense for definitional information, but not to establish that they are notable. Likewise, reference to it on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant, as it is very easy to throw a brief mention onto a peripherally-relevant page, even though it isn't really a noteworthy aspect of that subject. Someone in the real world (independent of the people who run the database) needs to have cared enough to have produced something citable. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have notified {{Chembox}} (talk) [5], WT:CHEMISTRY and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology once more, clarifying that removal of this article would also imply removal of the data row from {{Chembox}} & asking for sources if one wants to save this all.

Depending on the responses (here or in article), if this generates activity I suggest (to the closing admin) this AfD be prolongued (relisted) to allow fleshing it out. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that data row have to be removed if this article is deleted? Couldn't the "3DMet" in the infobox just be changed from a link to plain text? XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was unlinked until recently; here unlinked or redlinked is the same. We would link to 3DMet, without answering the question: "What is 3DMet?". When this AfD deletes, what is the meaning of the data (ie, the 3DMet ID for a certain compound) when the database itself is considered irrelevant (per this AfD)? If the ID were relevant for a certain compound, it would have ended up in a source (actual application of the database info). I also replied here. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this AfD is independent by itself, but the consequence re removing datarow 3DMet altogether from {{Chembox}} by now is talk-central here. - DePiep (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this should not be an article, then I would suggest that it be put into Wikipedia: space to give a link target for the chembox. The chembox can link to it as it is useful. Whether it is notable is a different question. Wikipedia links to 3DMet do not prove notability. The KEGG database links to 3DMet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some article into which this one can be merged? (Cf. how when journals are not quite notable, we redirect to the publisher, university or society that runs them.) XOR'easter (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the problem with the template (or at least the same problem). People who know what 3DMet is don't need a link. People who don't know what it is probably aren't going to care what its accession number for any given biochemical is anyhow - it is not our job to publicize an obscure database. If it has to be defined for it to mean anything to people, I would question whether it is well enough known to merit inclusion in what is already an obnoxiously excessive infobox template anyhow. All that is a separate question than the AfD, though. If it is not notable, it is not notable. Agricolae (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also repeatedly said that this AfD does not decide on inclusion/exclusion in the infobox {{Chembox}}. I also said it does imply deletion of this related data (i.e., at the talkpage). But I do not get your point re People who don't know what it [3DMet] is probably aren't going to care what its accession number for any given biochemical is anyhow -- that is the opposite of encyclopedic approach, and of the idea of linking. It also contradicts the strong & complete advocacy for deletion re notability, and then dropping that case completely'when related issue comes along. If the database is not worth an article and obscure (per this AfD), then how can its data be relevant for inclusion? -DePiep (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I dcreated this article some time ago exactly to add the bluelink to {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I also said it does imply deletion of this related data" — for the record, I'm still unconvinced that this is true. XOR'easter (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Imply" as in: does logically incur. Final conclusion will&should be at Template talk:Chembox. (Where ever was I uncleare in this??). -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, {{Chembox}} editors should not get the idea, like: "the database 3DMet is not wiki-worthy, but let's keep the data in enwiki". -DePiep (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the reqired WP:RS to establish WP:N, either in the current article or in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One ref in the article and google not persuading me. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atal Vatika

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

Part of Atal Indian. Not independently notable Rathfelder (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NGO and WP:GNG same as Atal Indian. a Tree planting campaign, started by an actor has only received interview like WP:INHERITED coverage. Its website says, [6]Atal Indian has been conceptualized by Nitin Sahrawat, as part of his social outreach efforts.. This is a minor 2 para coverage. This is coverage of the actor mostly. This is an interview and not Independent coverage. The content at Nitin_Sahrawat#Social_causes is enough for this sort of coverage.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going strictly by the rules, one would have suggested merging Atal Vatika with Atal Indian, but Atal Vatika seems like a work in progress. Keeping this article would ensure that it would serve as a reference, and act as a blueprint for the creation of more urban forests in India.The Seeker Syndrome (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The Seeker Syndrome (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Hi Author of this article. If you have any Policy based justification please provide, merely stating WP:NEGLECT would not help in your cause. also see WP:WEBHOST--DBig Xrayᗙ 10:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I overlooked WP:AVOIDCOI, my bad. Also, thanks for the advice to avoid WP:ILIKEIT. A google search would show links for more Atal Vatikas that are being started all over India. I would suggest that the coverage is sufficient to establish the notability of Atal Vatika. The Seeker Syndrome (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:INDENT, WP:GOOGLEHITS is not sufficient, you actually need to provide the sources for claiming notability. Merely stating they exist somehwere is not sufficient. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any third-party sources. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 22 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 Baltika Breweries#Baltika. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baltika No. 0

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

Brand does not meet significance criteria. References in the article are not authoritative.--RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC) --RTY9099 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baltika Breweries#Baltika. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:PRODUCT to Baltika Breweries#Baltika as a categorized {{R from product name}} and {{R to section}}. A redirect in a case like this may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. Sam Sailor 21:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Aksenov

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

Although additional sources have been added since the last afd, none seem to have any value as references or suggest any real notability to meet. Denis Aksenov been low post and does not comply with policy relevance. --RTY9099 (talk) 03:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @RTY9099: for future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 02:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moscow is (a) a global city whose city councillors are considered notable enough to pass NPOL #2, and (b) a standalone federal city of Russia which is effectively a "state" or "province" in its own right, thus its city councillors actually bump up from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 as first-order divisional legislators. The first discussion is not relevant, as it took place before he was elected to the Moscow City Duma, when being chairman of the youth chamber was still the only notability claim he had at that time — but while this does need some referencing improvement, the base notability claim he has now is a hard "article must be allowed to exist" pass. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. Moscow city Duma is equivalent to Rhode Island legislature. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOL is met. Article could do with copy-editing. Sam Sailor 07:13, 23 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 11:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Servelec

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

inadequate evidence of notability - -refs are PR and notices only. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Financial Times and the Yorkshire Post thought it was notable enough for a story. It's become a significant player in the computerisation of health services. Digital Health carries lots of reports about deployment. Staff of Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust quoted are not PR. Rathfelder (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are seven different independent sources cited. Rathfelder (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient sourcing to meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Times devoted a substantial article to the company. I think that meets WP:CORPDEPTH.Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 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 no consensus. Clear consensus not to delete, but a toss-up between keeping at this title and merging. And, if merge, unclear what's the best target. For now, I'll call this NC, and people can continue to discuss a possible merge on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Mail Transport System

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

not notable in any way. See also its developer page: David Harris (software developer), it is also not notable and is nominated for deletion, thanks. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into David Harris (software developer) - not significant enough for a stand alone article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that that article too is up for deletion, unfortunately in some ways not part of that this as a WP:BUNDLE. You may wish to also explore the the other merge target I have suggested below.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~Keep WP:ATD as part of WP:BEFORE should have meant either the article was tagged or the merge of this MTA into the sister MUA Pegasus Mail, but with the keep tagging for issues and optionally a merge proposal which can be sorted outside of AfD which is what is meant to happen. MTA entanglements are not my favourite pastime, MUAs being more use visible, but if this Mercury MTA relates to the mercury MTA at XAMPP then it probably should retain own article status. The harm caused by this article is minimal, the disruption to do a full investigation at AfD is significant and the timing is forced, and a proposal of a Merge in AfD requires the commitmnet to complete the merge promptly after AfD. However while I propose a speedy keep I am aware the conditions are unlikely to have been deemed to be met. I would therefore fallback to a keep with tagging and at worst a merge to Pegasus Mail however I am not in good faith able to give a 100% commitment I would complete the merge in that circumstance ... it is perhaps 60% chance I would complete it promptly. (Edit conflict prepping this message)Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This forum post leads me to believe Mercury has a very significant role recently/currently? as the MTA in XAMPP. Together with its earlier role the 1990s? for Netware I am strongly recommending for a keep, though resources for that period will likely be offline and might need search of an archive like Bletchley Park. The Speedy Keep opportunity has passed and I am recommending keep with article tagging. While the Pegagsus Mail MUA and Mercury MTA are from the same stable and perhaps often used together and will often be applied separately also and because of different and non simple lifecycles and development are best kept separate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 2012 page on How to use Mercury Mail in XAMPP. Pol098 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge well as the nominator, I think now it should be merged into Pegasus Mail, they have also a common web-site. Editor-1 (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge into an appropriately-named article. I'm thinking of Mercury's historical importance, which unfortunately isn't reflected in the article at present. When Novell Netware was the networking system, before Microsoft had any network server capability, Mercury running on a Netware server as an NLM, together with Pegasus running on MS-DOS workstations, was a very usual mail system for both internal and external mail, maybe the principal or only one, I don't know—mail wasn't as important then as it is now, Mercury/Pegasus was a pioneer. A Windows network implementation followed much later. Pol098 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am kind going on what Djm-leighpark and Pol098 posted above, I don't know how well Mercury Mail was used or if was as popular as Pegasus however from I know it was one of the main LAN mail tools of the 1990s along with Novell Netware. The article feels a bit weak on sources maybe that can be fixed, but I prefer to keep as is, instead of any merge. Govvy (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know ... if Mercury Mail was as popular as Pegasus". It wasn't an "either/or", they're not alternatives. On a network you could either have each workstation with its own mail client, using the network only to store each user's mail on the file server, or a fully networked mail system. Pegasus MS-DOS or possibly Apple Mac workstations worked with Mercury running on the Netware server; Mercury exchanged mail with the Internet, and collected it from and forwarded it to Pegasus on workstations. Pegasus for MS-DOS was not a non-networked free-standing mail client. A relevant quote, written after Windows 3 was in use: "Unlike the Windows versions of Pegasus Mail, the DOS version does not have built-in support for the Internet POP3, SMTP or IMAP protocols, because there is no standard TCP/IP interface for DOS-based computers. However, by adding our Mercury Mail Transport System as a mail server, you can provide fully-integrated centralized Internet e-mail services and mailing list management for your Pegasus Mail users." (http://www.pmail.com/overviews/ovw_pmail.htm) Pol098 (talk) 14:25, 15 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 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (software developer)

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

not notable, just a software developer of 2 proprietary software Editor-1 (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:GNG because he was recognised by his peers as making a significant contribution to software development in New Zealand. I note that there is not a lot written about him, but both his software developments are still active NealeFamily (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* You come from New Zealand and your fellow-citizen has very little coverage in press outside New-Zealand, all the references in the article are from that country and I don't think the Lifetime Achievement Award which is a friendly award, can give notability to this article. Editor-1 (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an IT geek, but noting the comments on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercury Mail Transport System, I get the impression that the software David Harris developed is more significant than the article states. It needs someone from the IT world to comment NealeFamily (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This guy has been around a long time, kind of a founding father in internet mail, web communications. I am surprised his article is so small, [7] Govvy (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's certainly a major figure in the world of email software development. Sadly, he's also very much a recluse, so there isn't much information about him online. For what it's worth, here's a non-New Zealand article about him and his work. [8] Grutness...wha? 13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Er, Grutness I already posted that link in my comment above! Govvy (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Right you are, guv. Grutness...wha? 13:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That link is all about "Pegasus Mail" and rarely mentioned him just as its developer, so it does not help to his notability. Editor-1 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking information which may not meet the WP:GNG, as I agree with Editor-1 he is just non notable software delvopler of just 2 proprietary softwares. Sheldybett (talk) 04:20, 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 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Harris' work is part of the history of email as a platform, and was the subject of two Usenet newsgroups and several mailing lists. He's one of the few people who authored both a popular email server and a email client. The article needs work, but not deletion. Anirvan (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If his work is really part of the E-mail history there should be many independent sources about him, but there is no significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The fact is this person is just a regular software developer with little coverage about his 2 proprietary software. Editor-1 (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not enough material to support a standalone article, already mentioned in Pegasus Mail and Mercury Mail Transport System . OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments that address the amount of reference material available, not what he did, would be helpful in determining notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus was quite a thing in its day, and an interesting piece of world and NZ internet history. Yes this article is a stub, but keeping it gives a chance for it to be completed Somej (talk) 09:12, 10 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 merge to Municipal Art Society. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Center (art gallery)

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

Has no sources and has never had any since creation in 2005. A web search shows it to have closed and I do not see sources to support its notability. I recommend merge with Municipal Art Society. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge to Municipal Art Society. Five sources added; previously there were none. It obviously has a public profile. The help of a New Yorker would be appreciated, to determine the status of where it actually is and if it is still open! There. are mentions of a move int he NY times source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry my mistake in saying that it had closed, if it has. I have not yet found a web site for it. And prior to my removing the link form the article, it had two web sites in External Links, the "Official website" was Municipal Art Society, as well as "The Urban Center book store". It is The Urban Center book store that Google says is "permanently closed". -Lopifalko (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Municipal Art Society. The NYT article provides significant coverage, but sources found in searches and and those added to the article are mostly listings in guide books that do not quite provide significant coverage. Other sources also only provide mentions, rather than significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 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 redirect to Michael Sayman. czar 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Snaps

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

Non-notable iOS word game. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seeing as the developer is notable, why not just merge/redirect there per WP:ATD? Regards So Why 08:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the developer notable? Taking a look at the article it seems pretty promotional/non-notable to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Sayman. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 05:49, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Card warp

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

Previous AfD three years ago was closed as no consensus as there were no participants after two relists.

This doesn't appear to be a particularly notable card trick - I couldn't find references to it in any of the usual sources, and I can't locate the sources mentioned in the article to verify their contents or reliability.

Original rationale was similar and I agree with it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is outrageous to nominate an article because you personally are unable access the sources. Nor is it necessary that material exists online. We assume good faith for offline sources unless there is reason not to as a matter of policy. If you are implying that the sources don't actually exist, then that is incorrect. They can all be shown to exist with online evidence and in most cases are held by libraries;

The Michael Close source is on gbooks, and also OCLC World Cat which lists library holdings
The Michal Ammar source at World Cat
The Schwarzman source is listed at the Conjuring Archive along with dozens of other sources that discuss this trick under various names
The Eugene Burger source at World Cat

go read the sources first before claiming lack of notability. SpinningSpark 19:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just wondering - is a card trick notable because it's on a few videos? Are these sources WP:PRIMARY? And if this is kept, the sources need to be added to the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you responding to me? All those sources are already in the article. They are just formatted as prose rather than the usual reflist. Only half the sources are videos, and videos are just as acceptable as printed sources, subject to the same RS guidelines. SpinningSpark 17:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SpinningSpark: Partially to you, partially posing a question - I'm not trying to disqualify videos as a legitimate source, but rather noting it's difficult to determine whether it's a primary or secondary source: I think the question is, is this someone showing you how to do their trick, or is this someone showing you how to do a trick? SportingFlyer talk 22:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's hard to tell, but it appears the Michael Close video is self-published - at least the corresponding book is. [9] is by L&L Publishing. I can't find "Apocalypse Volume 3 Number 7". SportingFlyer talk 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Michael Ammar, not Michael Close – at least that's where your link goes. Surely he can be counted as an established expert in the field per WP:RS/SPS. SpinningSpark 23:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC

I'm not sure why you are suggesting L&L Publishing is a self-publishing house. There is no sign on their website that they take money to publish. SpinningSpark 00:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I'm not suggesting it's self-published, I'm trying to find where the videos were sourced from since there are no inline references. SportingFlyer talk 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

same place SpinningSpark 00:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This was originally in reply to Sportingflyer's second comment but I moved it out rather than bork the whole order of things. Spinningspark, I apologize for phrasing my original argument inarticulately - I (unfairly) assumed the reference to the original AfD would suggest I felt the same and wouldn't need to make the same argument again. I should have copy-pasted it if I wanted to do that.

That being said, I think the question of primary vs. secondary is the real issue with this article (and, come to think of it, other magic trick articles in general, even the couple I've worked on). Those videos, and even the linked books, are commercial how-to guides. They exist for the purpose of teaching people to do these tricks, not for the purpose of evaluating the tricks critically or commenting on the history of them. To me, that places them more towards being primary than secondary sources, which would mean they are much less indicative of notability. In contrast, something like Jim Steinmeyer's Hiding The Elephant would be a secondary source, because its function is to discuss the history of a particular trick, not to teach someone how to do that trick.

It looks like WikiProject Magic is dead, which is a shame, because there's no SNG here and I think it might be helpful to have one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was only one magician involved, then sure. But the Conjuring Archive is enough to convince me that numerous magicians have used this trick or created versions of it. That gives it some kind of notability to my mind. SpinningSpark 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in sources such as Magic: A Reference Guide and so is notable. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google is showing standard fair. Merge would be reasonable if there was a target. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Goodman

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

Does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:CREATIVE. Significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/You_are_handsome with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He wrote for three seasons of Dinosaurs. There is coverage. James500 (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: I don't think that writing credits (among apparently several writers) amount to notability under WP:CREATIVE. In any case, he -- nor other writers -- are mentioned at the Dinosaurs (TV series) article. I've not seen sufficient coverage either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not satisfy the notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Per WP:NOTINHERITED the fact he wrote for Dinosaurs does not make him notable because that is not backed up by significant coverage from secondary sources itself. Also this seems like the case of self promotion aka WP:PROMO, one user only making and editing this article, references being the official site of Andy Goodman... Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:32, 21 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 Hugs. czar 03:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Delegato

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

Does not meet any of criteria of musical notability guidelines. Google search reveals vanity and publicity hits, but no third-party coverage. No need for separate article from band (and questions can be raised about whether band should be covered).

Author appears to be publicity agent for band, User:Dashugs03 and The Hugs.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hugs, as all references are about the band, not Delegato individually. As per the nomination, notability is not inherited. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hugs per WP:MUSICBIO. I cannot find anything to establish that Delegato himself is notable, as the coverage of him is brief and in context of the band. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 12:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Liu

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

Created by a blocked sockpuppet, supported by the usual mix of low quality and/or non-independent sources.

The subject's claim to fame appears to be having founded the company Kabam, so redirecting the article there would be a reasonable course of action. Per the available coverage, her other achievements are not sufficient to justify a standalone article. Rentier (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see three reasonably good sources (VentureBeat and the two Forbes articles), that seem independent. The rest seem pretty poor. Though, with these existing, it can't be too far from notability. Having been created by a sockpuppet makes no difference for an article meeting WP:GNG Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, I only mentioned it to invite extra scrutiny. For example, the Forbes articles come from their contribution network, which lacks editorial oversight and is worthless for establishing notability. This is explicitly stated in Wikipedia's guidelines for corporate notability and the same principle applies here. Rentier (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Though not terribly notable, she meets the criteria, even if barely. Besides what has been already mentioned: an interview/chapter dedicated to her in the Female Innovators at Work: Women on Top of Tech, and high coverage in journals like Animation Magazine. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 11:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources (one is an interview) discuss the subject in the context of the company Kabam. I see this as a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and the place to discuss Liu's contribution is in the article about the company. Rentier (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources look okay. GH award says a lot IMO. Between all that I'd say we are above any reasonable definition of notability. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, while the award is a clear indication of notability, the bio that goes with it [10] is nearly an ideal source. You'd best believe an award like that was vetted carefully. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are fine. Forbes and inc.Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 22 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 per consensus and WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

213 discography

AfDs for this article:

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

Same as last time this was at AfD. Nothing new. wumbolo ^^^ 15:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, not enough content for a standalone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Personally I think this is enough for a standalone page but it just seem unnecessary because the main page isn't that long. Horizonlove (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and redirect to article on 213 - I concur with the above comments that the article on 213 is not all that long and therefore a redirect may be possible. Vorbee (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ten Pound Hammer and Vorbee.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JC7V-talk 05:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TRI Pointe Group

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

Lots of incidental non-signficant coverage around IPO. I do not see the sort of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources that would indicate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Multiple secondary sources covering publicly traded company. Shurpin (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable company. Listed on Bloomberg and on the New York Stock market Buzzy anslem (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article contains plenty of references which discuss in-depth Tri Pointe Group ([11] [12]). Also plenty of refs through a quick Google News search.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that there are many reliable sources that makes the article satisfy WP:GNG. Vinodbasker (talk) 04:27, 16 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. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Sandstein 11:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle

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

Per Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Request:_Mark_Lindley-Highfield_of_Ballumbie_Castle I'll nominate on behalf of the requester and ask the community: is the subject notable? Vexations (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, but the search used here for newspapers does not work. The Google news search does: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mark+lindley-highfield&safe=strict&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiml8D_gfjdAhWKIMAKHd6YCzsQ_AUIDygC&biw=1517&bih=730 . There are also referenced and linked newspaper articles in the article: Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle. I have requested elsewhere edits to improve the article to meet with acceptable standards. 82.129.81.98 (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am reverting to my original view that the page should be deleted. The edit request function is ineffectual and two new editors believe that the article should be deleted, so I now endorse their view in an aim to reach concensus. I mentioned previously that the page omits my FRSA award and those received from HRH Dom Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança, and other information that should really be present to make the article complete. In view of these shortcomings, it should definitely be deleted.MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It must be kept of course. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, is in the business of creating articles about notable people. Here is a page, confirming the subjects bone fides:Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle. What an fantastically exotic person! MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle, the page can be modified accordingly to make it more accurate, assuming any sourced references added can be verified. Wikipedia rules frown upon a person editing his own page, but it can be done via a mechanism like Wikipedia:Edit requests and somebody will come along and update for you. scope_creep (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
on the fence at the moment - I am not really seeing much worth reporting, mostly verified from obscure looking sources, although I am not experianced in academic notability he doesn't look astounding in any single specific particular way, also the subject, if it is him, he has not been verified, keeps removing the mention of his involvement in the Ceri Fuller Inquest, which might be the reason for requesting it's deletion. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could be persuaded to agree with the keeping of the page if as per scope_creep amendments to the page can be done via a mechanism like Wikipedia:Edit requests. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle, if you plan to use that mechanism you will have to make a declaration concerning conflict of interest, WP:COI on your user page. This is mandatory under Wikipedia Terms of Use. The instructions can be found at WP:DISCLOSURE. Once that is done, the Edit Request mechanism is straightforward. Please read the following: Connected Coi. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep. I have done this, thanks. I still do not mind if the article is deleted. I noticed that I was affecting consensus, which I do not wish to do, as I believe it is for the editors to decide. Thank you. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coolio. scope_creep (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The COI editor has requested information on their titles to be included in the article, and supplies references linked to and, in some instances, accessible by the subject himself (i.e., his Aberdeen University profile page, which they have access to and are able to alter which information is displayed there). I would normally have accepted these employer-type sources for titles if their notability derived from actions made by the subject while acting in those positions, but many of these titles do not fit that definition (i.e., his role as Principal Examiner of the Cambridge Research Qualification, seeing that his notability derives from his campaign for freedom of speech and the editorial independence of the Gaudie newspaper). Thus I've declined the request. The details presented in that request, combined with the padding of items such as the infobox (awards section, children's first names, etc.) give me pause about the COI editor's intentions for this article. If editors here believe that information—including that in the COI edit request—to be worthy of the article, I invite them to accept these requested changes on the COI editor's behalf. Regards, Spintendo 20:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that editors will feel free to edit or delete as is appropriate. MLindley-HighfieldofBallumbieCastle (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even come anywhere near WP:GNG. Tony May (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:31, 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. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Faizabad

AfDs for this article:

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

Relist following a no-consensus closure; the entire original discussion consisted of one keep vote that was based on a flawed argument, one delete vote that explained why the keep argument was flawed, and two no-vote comments that did nothing to resolve the flaw. The problem here is that one of the core notability criteria that a radio station has to pass to qualify for its own article is that it originates at least a portion of its own programming schedule in its own local studios -- but the keep vote simply assumed that broadcasting works the same way the world over as it does in Canada and the United States, which isn't necessarily true because in many countries, including India, a radio "network" can be simply a bunch of relay transmitters with one common programming feed and no local programming breaks. So the notability test for a radio station is not passed just by using the word "affiliate", it's passed by showing reliably sourced evidence that the station actually produces some local programming -- but the only source being cited here at all is the station's directory entry in the network's own self-published frequency list, not anything that provides an answer to the question of whether this station produces any original programming or not. And since one of the other core criteria that a radio station has to meet to qualify for a standalone article is that its meeting of the other three criteria is reliably sourced, this is failing that one too. No prejudice against recreating a redirect to All India Radio once this is deleted, but it should still be deleted first as there's no value in retaining its edit history. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All India Radio. There's no possible content through reliable sources such that a meaningful article can be written that doesn't just read "[radio station] is a radio station that broadcasts in [broadcast area] with a frequency of [this many] Mhz". There does not need to be hundreds of stubs that only read as such. A table listing All India Radio's translators should also be made as per WP:BROADCAST.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Fails WP:GNG by a mile or so.

All India Radio/Aakashvani follows a three-tier-broadcast system.The third tier comprises of local stations, whose programs are mainly transmitted over FM band and which claims to serve small communities, showcase local culture and broadcast area specific programs for the benefit of the community.The programming is flexible and spontaneous and the stations function as the mouth piece of the local community. There are currently 86 local stations and AIR Faizabad is one of them.

That Bearian claims one of the core notability criteria that a radio station has to pass to qualify for its own article is that it originates at least a portion of its own programming schedule in its own local studios ought to indicate keeping this article.But, my personal experience tells me that the local radio stations hardly fulfills their presumed role in any conceivable manner and they mostly serve as relay-transmitters of the regional feed produced by the concerned second-tier-station.All originality of content, in practicality, terminates with the second tier.
Also, I can guarantee that such local third-tier stations doesn't manage to retrieve any coverage in regional sources of Indian scape.∯WBG^converse 06:27, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twirlin'

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm somewhat torn on this nomination. I actually went looking for sources with the intention of improving this article, but found so little that I wound up deciding to AfD it instead. It's obvious that cane twirling or twirlin is a real art form with history and practitioners, particularly among African-American Greek fraternal groups. There are lots of discussions on forums about it, information on websites for the frats, photos of performances, etc - the interest is clearly there.

But what I can't find anywhere is a reliable and independent source which discusses the topic specifically - a book, a magazine or newspaper article, a scholarly study, anything. I tried "twirling" and "twirlin", adding "cane", "kappa", "greek" in various combinations, and didn't come up with anything.

The book A brief history of Twirlin' seems reliable on the surface. On closer inspection, the publisher "Think Enxit Press", appears to belong to author James Felton Keith: it has published two books and he is the author of both. Self-published books are not reliably fact-checked and cannot be relied upon as sources. Soulstepping was mentioned at the original AfD as a reliable source. It mentions canes, but the words "twirl", "twirling", or "twirlin" do not appear in it, so it can hardly be said to significantly discuss this topic. Steppin' on the Blues has some mentions of baton/cane twirling, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of significant content. I found other books, mostly discussions of fraternities and their history, that mention twirling trivially, but nothing that actually spoke about it in any depth.

I would suggest a merge to Stepping (African-American), but there's nothing reliably sourced in this article to actually merge. Redirecting without merging is also an option; I didn't want to unilaterally turn it into a redirect without a discussion, since it was previously kept. (As a side note, I have also tagged the similar article cane twirling for G12 as its entire history was a copyvio),

I would be delighted to withdraw if there are reliable sources about this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator offers to withdrawn if reliable sources are found. Re-listing to further establish consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dancing using canes as props goes back a lot further than the 1950s and I find the uncited claim that it is of African American origin highly dubious. At least, we need unimpeachable sources for the claim. Of the references in the article, the Fine and Malone books do not mention the term and I can't make out whether the Keith Group Innovation source is meant to be a book, web page or what. The only thing that actually has a url or other kind of link that can be followed is the external link which is dead or broken. The claim that the "history of the cane dates back to Eastern African culture of the 4000th century BCE" is alone enough to set off very loud alarm bells. SpinningSpark 18:51, 15 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. After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. Per very low user participation herein, closing with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Wife

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

Non-notable Soviet film.--RTY9099 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:20, 8 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 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evidence it is non-notable. No mention of wp:BEFORE. No mention of searching under any name, no "find sources" set up for searching of Russian-language name of film. Looks significant to me. --Doncram (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Lithuania wikipedia article about it, somewhat longer than our article (and google translated for me), the original language of the film is Lithuanian, not Russian, my bad, but as a Soviet era film maybe it should be searched for in Russian language too. The LT wikipedia article mentions some awards. I haven't done much searching. Try also:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for searching on "My Little Wife" with various accents
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL for searching on "My Little Wife" without those accents

Again I think this should be kept, it looks more significant the more I browse about it.--Doncram (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment search results yield results for the significance of the film in the history of the director and various actors involved in the film. It has also been translated as "My Tiny Wife" and other variations. It seems that the director and the actors involved have, after some hiatus, become reinvolved in film. The very significance experience of their involvement in this monumental film is important in explaining their relatively recent impacts. --Doncram (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, given lack of any detailed support for the nomination, and some (my own) support for "Keep", I would tend to want to appeal any simplistic "No consensus" result, relative to somewhat supported "Keep" result. --Doncram (talk) 04:50, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sandler

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

Musician and music producer with obscure significance and dubious sources.--RTY9099 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:17, 8 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 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 00:49, 22 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. czar 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sander (candidate)

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. A request for verification has been on this for eight years, with no improvement. Initially thought about PRODing it, but a previous AfD had been started and closed as delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris_Sander). HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not find RS that would have confirmed his notability. Den... (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a single source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL miserably.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has way too many articles on defeated candidates in 2008. That was the heyday of the wild west creation of articles time. We have lots of such articles that are really campaign coverage articles not bios, and need to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Just a candidate in an election and does not qualify WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Vinodbasker (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 17 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. czar 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entempo

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

Attempts to find supporting material to establish notability of the company have failed. Originally PROD-dePROD in 2006; another PROD in 2018 was dePROD by me due to previous PROD rejection. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability independent of retail sites. Even this single source I found actually discusses one of its products and not the company itself.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very lazy of me not to check for previous PRODs, but the company doesn't meet NCORP anyway. Tera TIX 09:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find any reliable source for the article except for its mention in the products details so fails WP:NCORP.Vinodbasker (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Search results show nothing that would pass GNG. Sdmarathe (talk) 23:27, 21 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 SNOW redirect.(non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toongabbie Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable primary school. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Toongabbie - The 2010 AfD resulted in a merge to Toongabbie, New South Wales which is now at Toongabbie. Primary schools are not generally notable and that is still true for this school. The article was only "un-redirected" as an unreferenced stub today by a new editor,[13] and either HapHaxion or Pichpich could have happily restored the redirect rather than tagging and ending up at AfD. With no indication of notability the outcome of the previous AfD should be honoured. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - agree with statement made by AussieLegend. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 06:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per AussieLegend.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per AussieLegend. Unnecessary AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Not notable in its own right. BUT this time do some of the relevant merge too. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:18, 15 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Salim Khan}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Bench}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phillips Umbubu}}