Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 September	30 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arudra (2017 film)

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM: began production some time this year, can't find any mention of a planned release date, and I can't find significant coverage online (in English at least) from WP:RS. There's a short Times of India article cited, but it and the blog reference cited are about the female lead Meghali, with only a passing mention of the film itself. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:CRYSTAL-gazing. Wait until release. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation as a redirect to Scott Brothers Global or similar. A Train^talk 08:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Scott

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

Notable???? How?????? TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable impersonator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- appears to be a walled garden of articles: Scott Brothers Global, Jonathan Scott (Canadian actor), Property Brothers (franchise), and Drew Scott, all edited almost exclusively by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've refrained from participating in this decision as is my custom for articles I've created (except in especially egregious examples). However, I am not a SPA by any stretch of the imagination, as 12 years of edits will attest to.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Esprit15d. Your last 250 edits have been within this family of articles. I didn't go back 12 years. Rhadow (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has hosted and produced multiple HGTV shows. His number of roles and the cult following these HGTV shows have are more than enough to satisfy 1 and 2 of WP:NACTOR. - Galatz ^Talk 14:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete incidental character in a franchise. Possibly, a redirect to the article on the franchise, but all the necessary information is already there. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Lost

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

Notability, lack of. The article on Spanish Wikipedia from which this has been creared has (unlike this article) a load of sources, but not a single one that I founfd in any way convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too checked the Spanish article and thought that the massive number of refs there would help yield something useful. It didn't. The problem with the name is that it's ferquently used in a biblical or narrative sense, and there was a television series by that name. https://www.discogs.com/artist/3942515-Eden-Lost shows three recordings, but there's no AllMusic bio (http://www.allmusic.com/artist/eden-lost-mn0001531242) There are a few book mentions, but we need significant coverage. That does happen, but it's in fan websites and blogs, which are not reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2017 (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) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snapped Ankles

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

A speedy was declined because they are 'associated with a notable label' (hardly blue note or Stiff) & that there are sources. Flavy sources imo. Theis is a bunch of non-notable wannabees. And post-punk?? Punk ceased to be interesting thirty snecking years ago. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail all WP:BIO, however NOT Anough significant coverage on wikipedia multiple sources , i mean Reliably sources. Samat lib (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They had a session broadcast on Marc Riley's BBC 6 Music show ([1]), and have received enough coverage, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. I would expect most of the UK music mags to review the album (released today), and likely one or two broadsheets over the weekend. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's findings; coverage exists on the subject in reliable sources. gongshow talk 06:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: their album Come Play the Trees has been reviewed in the October 2017 issue of Mojo. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another album review: [7]. --Michig (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IFE Worldwide

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

Few of the claims made in the article can be referenced with independent, reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NCORP and is full of weasel words e.g. high-profile, brand new event etc. A7 declined on the grounds that while it may fail WP:NCORP a WP:CCS is given. DrStrauss talk 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question--perhaps it would be a good idea to expand "few of the claims" Which of the claims can be reliably sourced and which not? DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands; entirely promotional & no 3rd party references. There may be a notable topic here somewhere (of which I'm not yet convinced), but this article ain't it. Borders on G11 and no value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2017 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idesktop.tv

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

A7 and G11 speedy declined Courtesy ping: Alex Shih. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG due to lack of independent coverage either referenced or that I can find. DrStrauss talk 14:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A retired singer with Intimate Opera Company who went on to be an uncredited extra for TV shows. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please honour WP:BEFORE, not just what's in the article. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keturah-sorrell-2sztpm7qxqb and many other print articles and references found with a Google search. Google books has many references and discussions about the subject. I admit it is harder to find references for performers who meet MUSICBIO but were at their peak well before the age of the Internet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Google news sources including The Times article, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – an obit in The Times isn't written for non-notable people. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of entries on imdb (both credited and verified as well as uncredited)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Gorshtenin

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

Non-notable teenager trying to promote himself by paying for a Wikipedia article (in accordance with the TOU by an editor who has declared that status). Nothing here remotely comes close to notability: the sourcing is either all non-RS blogs or interviews with trade pubs, which are both primary sourcing, so not counting towards GNG, or are pushing the border of what we consider RS. Article has been G11ed in the past, but the language is neutral enough this time around that it should be evaluated at AfD. This fails both points of WP:N, not enough RS coverage and as promotion excluded by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, and sources (which rely on user-generated information and interviews with the article subject) fail WP:VER. This is a primary sourcing issue, as the only claims of significance in the subject article come from answers given by the article subject. Note that the last time this article subject appeared on Wikipedia, the article creator was most likely the article subject. While the creator of the current article has disclosed that he/she has been paid, I find this to be unsavory.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While writing the article I was unaware that primary sourcing could extend to material supposedly provided by the subject (i.e. interviews in this case) even though it has been included and published by sources completely independent of the subject. Perhaps more clarification should be provided in WP:VER in that regard. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources can in some circumstances be used to meet WP:V. They do not, however, satisfy WP:GNG, which requires coverage in reliable secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail all WP:BIO, however NOT Anough significant coverage on wikipedia multiple sources , i mean Reliably sources. Samat lib (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yumnam

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Source searches and news searches reveal no independent, reliable coverage of either the group or the term. DrStrauss talk 13:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst the article requires some copy-editing, I don't see notability as an issue. The name is clearly common, and as is often the case in the region it appears to denote a community in itself. See for example https://books.google.com/books?id=wLzDLsEYZGQC&pg=PA36 , https://books.google.com/books?id=Qs4BAAAAMAAJ [p. 76] etc.. --Soman (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just passing mentions. Your argument boils down to passing mentions and it exists. That doesn't satisfy GNG. DrStrauss talk 15:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the stub. Without any references or specific people of this name, I'm not sure how the article can be kept. But they possibly do exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kagundu Talk To Me 13:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article has no references as it sits. This information would be better served on the Meitei people page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article has no references, or any information. If there is information on this, I feel like it would be just as likely to be brought forward from nothing as this stub. With Thanks - Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:33, 13 October 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opadchyi Ihor Mykhailovych

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG PROD was removed without edit summary improvement or discussion. Domdeparis (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kiev is obviously a large and important enough city that politicians at the municipal level would be accepted as notable if they could be properly sourced — this, however, is referenced not to media coverage about him but to media coverage of other things written by him, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get him a Wikipedia article, and it's written remarkably like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debris documentar

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

This film does not appear to be notable (WP:GNG). I read German and looked for German sources as well. All coverage is either passing mentions or in self-published sources such as blogs. The one cited source, heise.de, does not even mention the film. Because the content is not verifiable in reliable sources, a merger to the director also seems inappropriate. Sandstein 12:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it from the German equivalent Wiki, so, obviously, they did not have a problem vis-à-vis notability/importance over there, plus, my article was approved here by another editor via the articles for creation apparatus. I cited two sources in my article (not including five external links to film databases), not one, including this book which discusses the film at length. If it must be deleted and merged, may I suggest it be merged with Melancholie der Engel, the film which it comments on?--79.183.203.120 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was previously speedy deleted for using "incredibly graphic detail of cannibalistic corpse rape". After a deletion review which established this was not grounds for deletion, the article was restored. I don't think arguing that it is on another wiki has any great validity, or arguing it has no sources has any validity. It has two sources, and the de-wiki's notability guidelines are different. User:Aguyintobooks 13:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sandstein. If he was unable to find sourcing in either language that meets RS standards. WP:DEL7 applies. I can't find English sourcing to meet our inclusion standards myself, and I'll take his word on the German. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please note the book I referenced above, cited in the article. I do not understand why people here continue to ignore the fact that I cited it, even though I mentioned it several times now. Another editor made it more clear now.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the analysis below as to the reliability of the sourcing. This is still in WP:DEL7 territory. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Marginally notable. In passing, I note that the German Wikipedia is more stringent on sourcing than the English Wikipedia. In any event, the content can (and should) survive in the director's and/or the other film's article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

79.183.203.120 As a matter of formatting, you added the article as "Further reading." I put it in as a source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for that, as, maybe, now, some people will actually notice that I cited two sources, not one, and, that one of them is a book discussing the film at length.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail to meet (WP:GNG) Samat lib (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the book I mentioned earlier? I changed the link at the article now to Google Books so that people could see for themselves.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book has two pages dedicated to it, but I have no idea what it says. the other source is awkward because it does not seem to mention the film by the title of the article, autotranslate makes the article incomprehensible. I basically have no clue what it say either. User:Aguyintobooks 19:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus two more pages about Reise nach Agatis (remember, the article deals with it, too) and a few briefer mentions elsewhere. I cited the German article not because it deals with the film (it does not) but, rather, to have a reference for the fact that Dora worked as an assistant for Lommel. I do not speak French and added the book only because I found it and, given that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, thought it was a notable/reliable source: a French speaker can, surely, come and assist.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book source Les dossiers Sadique-master Dissection du cinéma underground extrême mentioned above seems like borderline self-published. Obscure author, selling on Amazon as an e-book or a paperback for nearly US$100 isn't something I'd consider "mainstream reliable", and the problem with books is that the author can write anything desired without fact checking or accuracy, and still be published. So I'd say this is a very weak source in comparison to something in periodically published media. The article source mentioned above doesn't deal with the film, either. Just because something exists on another language Wikipedia doesn't mean it meets the inclusion criteria of the English Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing I can say, again, is that the publisher has a page on the French Wiki, so, it is probably not self-published (also, Amazon.fr sells the paperback for EUR 32,00 and the Kindle for EUR 16,00, the equivalents of c. 38 and 19 USD, respectively, according to XE.com, and, this is also the price at the publisher's site, so, I am not sure how you got to the $100 figure). Again, if it must be deleted, consider merging it, as I suggested above, with the MdE article: I am willing to accept that as a solution, given how the forming consensus here seems to support deletion. FWIW, let me add, again, that the article passed AfC.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I got the $100 figure from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XQHG8SR/ (it's $92 now, I recall it was higher earlier). Also I'm not opposed to a merge or redirect. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, fails FILM as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 16:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I would, as a way to salvage the article, encourage people, also, to look for sources dealing with Reise nach Agatis, though, I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited).--79.183.203.120 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for "Debris documentar" as well as "Reise nach Agatis" and have obviously found nothing,

"I have not found any, except for the book (and, film databases, commercial sites, blogs, etc., not normally cited)" - If you haven't found any reliable sources yourself then in short you're wasting your time here replying to everyone. –Davey2010^Talk 17:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say I have not found any sources: I think the book is good enough, I simply meant I have not found any good sources except for that one. People here either ignore the fact I cited the book (and, continue to claim I cited nothing), or, claim it is not good enough, a claim I contested earlier. Worth seeing if there might be something under Voyage to Agatis, the film's official English title.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one book source does not meet GNG; the German article also has no sources to support this one's notability. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to add that this editor posted extremely hostile comments about me wrt another issue. I have seen plenty of articles here, on a wide variety of issues, with only one book source (plus, many with barely any sources at all). Nevertheless, seeing as I have no way of convincing you and you do not find any of this convincing, feel free to delete the article.--79.183.203.120 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WHYN you need at a bare minimum 2 significant references, three is preferred, I can't see this swinging to keep at this point. However merging most the content into Melancholie der Engel is reasonable. You could boldly do this, but don't take over the article! Dysklyver 23:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hoping they will at least allow this to stay. You can delete the article now. PS: I have a dynamic IP.--109.65.93.6 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming this will be deleted tomorrow?--109.65.93.6 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2017 (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. Ultimately, the strongest arguments were to retain the article, including one "delete" vote being struck mid-debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARS Public School

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

The article is purely promotional in tone. A web search does not show up any reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the classic circular reasoning to keep an article because earlier an article was kept because earlier an article was kept, etc. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disguise... The Banner talk 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, consensus. The RfC did not, of course, override longstanding consensus. However much the deletionists would like it to have done. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is your keep-opinion, Necrothesp. But the sheer fact that there was an RfC shows that your "consensus" is at best wafer thin. The Banner talk 15:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You will note that consensus since the RfC has continued to favour keeping secondary school articles. Very few have been deleted, inconclusive RfC or no inconclusive RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        There are indeed administrator do not act on the facts but listens to the ones that shout loudest. But as you stated here yourself: articles about schools DO get removed. The Banner talk 10:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they act on the opinions expressed, as they are expected to do; if opinions didn't count at AfD we wouldn't bother to have AfDs at all. Occasionally they are deleted. But usually not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn School. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the classic circular reasoning to keep an article because earlier an article was kept because earlier an article was kept, etc. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is disguise... The Banner talk 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per this RfC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The "longstanding precedent and consensus" mentioned above always required independent, reliable sources, which have not been provided in this case. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the RFC from February 2017 that states (among others) Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote a school. The Banner talk 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per Cordless Larry.I do not seem to retrieve any sourcing.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references can be located. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found this independent source in a high-profile newspaper which says that this is a sought-after school in a city with a high reputation for education. This is strong support for keeping the article.

Shekhar, Shashank (4 June 2016). "10 aspirants for every Class XI berth - Bihar & Bengal students throng Bokaro". The Telegraph (India). Retrieved 4 October 2017.

Verbcatcher (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject isn't notable. Arguments from Necrothesp and Kudpung ignoring the consensus signed by Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221 are essentially WP:ILIKEIT with a heavy dose of WP:IDHT. I don't care about schools one way or the other just like I don't care about baseball leagues in Korea. I am concerned when admins decide that their preferences overrule community consensus. Either we agree to abide by consensus even when it doesn't go our way or we really just want anarchy if it lets us have our cake and eat it, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris troutman people vote or comment at AfD whether they are admins or not. You should retract your disingenuous slur at admins. I put it to you that your reasoning is that the consensus in the RfC (for there was none - it was totally ambiguous) didn't go your way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: My "term of disparagement" against your argument is not disingenuous. You should know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. My !votes are always in keeping with whatever cockamamie rule the consensus comes up with; I don't seek to implement my "way." That's the difference between me and those opposed: I don't substitute my preferences for Wikipedia's consensus. I struggle to fathom how anyone in good faith could come to your conclusions and I honestly don't want to make this disagreement mean-spirited. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman:--Actually, I will have to side with Kudpung on this one, despite our gen. disagreement on the narrow topic.The RFC did not bind the !voters to vote in a part. manner.It just said that votes of a part. type shall be added to WP:AADD et al among many other things it said.It's the job of the closer to properly weigh the votes casted by different participants.And IMHO, the aspersions could be best-retracted.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Godric on Leave: That makes no damn sense. If the RfC did indeed say SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now in AADD territory, then any call to "precedence" is similar to ILIKEIT, also on the AADD list. Perhaps you think !voters are permitted to make invalid arguments but I've seen closers struggle with ignoring those invalid arguments. I have nothing personal against Kudpung but his argument defies logic. Do we collectively not care about AADD because it's an essay? I expect admins to act within the rules, not in defiance of them. These aren't even rules I made up or am a fan of. I'm just dutifully following what it says in black and white; that's what each of us owe as a member of this community. Kudpung impugns me as if I have an agenda to delete all articles about schools, so no, I won't be apologizing for discrediting his incomprehensible rationale. If you agree with him then somehow I'm not understanding what you're saying. Therefore, please leave me out of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I precisely think voters are permitted to make invalid/quasi-valid arguments.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sum up the actual situation. For years there has been a clear consensus that secondary schools are notable. A handful of editors continually claimed in AfD discussions that this consensus was not valid because they didn't agree with it and misinterpreted consensus as meaning "absolutely everyone agrees", which would clearly make it impossible ever to get a consensus on Wikipedia. Eventually they started an RfC with the wording: "Should secondary schools whose existence is verified by reliable, independent sources be presumed to be notable?" The debate that followed was inconclusive, as are most RfCs. All this means is that we haven't added that wording to the notability guidelines. It does not mean that the longstanding consensus has changed or that there is anything wrong with stating that a consensus exists. It still does and AfDs since the RfC have proved it still does, since very few secondary school articles continue to be deleted. The status quo remains unchanged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: "The debate that followed was inconclusive" Tazerdadog, Primefac, The Wordsmith, and Someguy1221 disagree with you. You should discuss it with them. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you think they said there was a conclusive result, do you? Maybe you should reread the RfC outcome ("Numerically, the respondents to this RFC were about evenly divided between supporting and opposing that statement", " leaning towards rejecting the statement posed in the RFC, but this stops short of a rough consensus", etc). I see the same lack of conclusion that results from pretty much every RfC. There was no consensus to add it to the notability guidelines; neither was there any consensus that secondary schools should not be presumed notable. The status quo where we express opinions at AfD and the closer decides the consensus has been maintained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis The RFC being referred to says "It's worth noting that this discussion does imply that schools are special" and that a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find reliable sources in local and/or print media. For schools in India this should include non-English sources and ideally print-only newspapers. Because this is not feasible for most editors we should cut these articles some slack, and accept articles on Indian schools with fewer and lower-quality sources that we would normally require.

There is a long-standing consensus that secondary schools are usually notable. Decisions should take note of long-standing consensus, and not go against it without good reason. This principle was not overturned by the RFC.

Nor does the RFC say that we should ignore long-standing precedent. WP:ONLYGUIDELINE says:

In particular, while precedents as defined at WP:OUTCOMES are not actual policy, by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy.

Verbcatcher (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Verbcatcher: Weak sauce. The IDHT is strong with you, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is strong in anyone who disagrees with you. How strange! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--The RFC closed in that part. manner because it invoked numerous outside eyes.If this had been done on the School Project t/p, the result would most probably be a snow-oppose.And the very debate that is often happening in these AfD discussions and is happening here, lies in the fact that those outsiders who !voted against the Schools=Automatic notability stand rarely participate in these AfDs and thus, what was/is the typical project-consensus continue to get aired, nearly un-abated on AfDs after AfDs and gives way to closures which in-turn reinforces their consensus.Sort of a positive-feedback-loop.And, in all reality, it takes guts to characterize arguments from long-term sysops as in-valid and closing a disc. against the so-called-consensus without being accused of supervoting.So, I don't blame the closers either.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Necrothesp:--Err...Challenge the close?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to. See above. Also note that I have no involvement in the schools project. I would also point out that if people cared enough about deleting these articles then they would take part in AfDs. AfDs continue to be about opinions. If they were not and notability was determined by hard and fast rules then there would be no need to have AfDs. Admins would just be able to delete articles that went against "the rules" without discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice when the administrators finally started ignoring the circular reasoning and judged the articles on their content. The Banner talk 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests you also don't like stubs, which also goes against community consensus. Also please stop attacking admins; we're all just expressing our opinions here. Not as admins or non-admins, but simply as editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be true: I do not like articles that are promotional and not sourced with independent sources. But promotion and non-existing sourcing is clearly not one of your concerns when it comes to schools. You just support every school, just because it is a school. The Banner talk 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. No sources, written to be promotional. Unless and until sources - online or off - are found, this article should be deleted. And I'll give you three guesses why they won't participate in AfDs, and the first two don't count, Kudpung, Necrothesp. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is a source. It's not a third party source, but the organizations web site is reliable enough for the basic facts about an organization. We have once or twice fo come across school articles without even that, and those do get deleted. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at least, past practice has required independent sources for a school article to be kept. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I identified a high-quality third party source earlier in this discussion: Shekhar, Shashank (4 June 2016). "10 aspirants for every Class XI berth - Bihar & Bengal students throng Bokaro". The Telegraph (India). Retrieved 4 October 2017. Verbcatcher (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen that - I was just addressing DGG's suggestion that a non-independent source alone has been regarded as enough to keep an article in the past. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per J947's argument and the sources he provides, my argument has changed to Keep. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is good reason for the current practice about high schools: it's part of a compromise. The compromise is that we keep articles on high schools unless there is doubt about real existence, but in exchange we do not make articles about primary schools unless there is something really special. The purpose of the compromise is to avoid thousands of arguments just like this -- before the compromise there were sometimes more than 10 a day, and the results were essentially random, depending on who showed up. These re appropriate articles to be permissive about--they good for beginners, and people may well eventually improve them. The difficulty with sources is in large part a matter of reference availability--we have no practical access to the places where such sources would be published. As for the RfC, it the confusing conclusion said two things with opposite implications: that there was no consensus that Schooloutcomes could be quoted as a reason and that the practice reported in Schooloutcomes was nonetheless an accurate description of what we did, and there was no consensus to change that. The net result is that the actual situation is just as beefore: we keep such articles. Challenging the same thing in mltiple AfDs in the hop that by chance one will come to a different consensus is taking unreasonable advantage of the inevitable inconsistency of WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that last point, DGG, how can consensus ever change if editors shouldn't challenge that consensus in AfDs? The argument is made that school articles should be kept because previous school articles were kept. This argument leaves little space for those who believe that schools are not necessarily always notable to challenge that consensus without initiating AfDs and arguing for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, consensus can be changed by a successful RfC with a clear outcome. The RfC you refer to contradicts itself so much that people could argue for or against schools notability. What we have since that RfC are the 'I don't like schools' people trying to change the existing practice through the backdoor of AfD. Ironically, it's the 1,000s of school AfD that have been closed as 'keep' that have established the practice which we employ to achieve consistency as explained by DGG. So those who 'believe' that schools are not necessarily always notable, should start yet another perennial RfC, and while they are about it, consider soccer players who have only played one game, railway and subway stations, shopping malls, and restaurants with a Mitchelin star, none of which gave us an education that prepared us for our degrees and PhDs. And until that happens, or you can ge the next 1,000 school AfD closed as 'delete', as per Necrothesp: the status quo remains; and with it, the need to constantly attack admins is moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I don't believe that I have been constantly attacking admins, or indeed attacking them at all. That aside, I'm happier with the final part of your answer (about the next 1,000 school AfDs) than the first part (about another RfC), because I think that if a consensus is based on a reading of past AfD outcomes, then it should be possible to change that consensus through a change in AfD outcomes. That's why I think it is unhelpful for DGG to suggest that editors shouldn't challenge past practice in AfD discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Upon reading through the closure of the February RFCI have found that the closure is confusing and inconclusive, but from my understanding the result was 'no consensus, defaulting to status quo'. BTW, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist was the status quo back then; existence has to be verified by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I believe though, that the correct interpretation would of been reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Now though, school AfDs have become much further scrutinised because of the RfC, and I feel that is a slightly negative aspect. Now, here are the two sources that the RfC requires: [8] [9]. This satisfies notability for third-world schools, as a contrast to this AfD. As a further note, promotional language is a content issue and ought to be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources that have been found consist of an incidental mention and "it exists and has a basketball team". Hardly significant coverage. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources offered by J947.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: I agree that it's far from SIGCOV, but it's enough for the result of the RfC to be satisfied. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree, J947. The RfC doesn't, as far as I can see, suggest that school articles should be kept based on passing mentions in sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: The RfC nutshell says References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD. Also, a this is in a third-world country, less references are required. Therefore, one piece of SIGCOV and a mention in another source is enough for schools like this. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 18:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urban India is hardly a backwater in terms of internet penetration, and the school is apparently relatively new, so it's not a case of having to search for pre-internet era print coverage. Indian editors Adamgerber80 and Godric on Leave have confirmed their inability to find significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the first time I am seeing so much traffic and discussion on an AFD. Every other time it is usually 2 or 3 people. As for this school, I want to provide a bit of background. Bokaro is a city built largely around a steel plant. Unlike the metros of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai, Bokaro doesn't have such an active media. Schools will almost never find independent coverage in India, unless and until the school is a bit old or it has become famous for a good academic record. This school seems to have been established in 2005, so it is relatively new. It is recognised by CBSE as can be seen from [10]. Other than this and the small mention in a local school news, there is not much information I can gather.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. Just Chilling (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you want to keep the article based on guess work? The Banner talk 20:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand a certain skepticism over articles for schools in India that have essentially no sources at all, and about which no statement of importance can be made. But this has clear 3rd party documentation for its quality and importance, and is an appropriate short article. If we're going to start becoming somewhat restrictive it makes no sense to start here with the deletions. (and that's the purpose of the compromise, to accept them all, rather than do injustice by the happenstance of focussing on one like this). DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the above !votes/comments, I have completely rewritten the article with sources. Hardcopy search is still needed to underpin notability but what is there clearly demonstrates the significance of the school. Just Chilling (talk) 23:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this version for the one with all the sources.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:05, 15 October 2017 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Walker

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

There's little indication of notability from a search for sources - even with a disambiguator most sources I can find are about a different Roland Walker (link). There's also quite a bit of copy-pasted content but I'm not sure if it is severe enough to warrant a G12. The only possible claim to fame is the receipt of a reward which is only reported in one source. DrStrauss talk 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 08:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Delete So, I'm not fully sure about this. But looking in Lexis, Newsbank, and Ebsco all found no hits about the person that I think this article is about. But there are other Roland Walker's who appear and who maybe if they are all the same person (and I really couldn't figure that out), then maybe...maybe...that person passes notability. I'd suggest delete based on my best effort to save the article, which I couldn't do. But, I'd encourage folks to be hesitant if the article come back with any changes. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Hamidun

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

Prod removed without improvement, edit summary, or message on the article's talk page. So next step is Afd. Poorly written article fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 09:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, could use some clean up but passes WP:GNG Utusan Malaysia [11], Sinar Harian [12], Astro [13], mStar[14]. These are from the article. — Za wl 16:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mostly articles about his mariage and not in-depth. Domdeparis (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are about the subject. Why would they even write about his wedding if he isn't notable? The first ref is about him as a singer, the second is about his career and the third and fourth are about his wedding with some details about him. These are only from the article, more can be found by searching. — Za wl 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable singer , lack evidence of notability on those sources provided at the moment . Samat lib (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable singer fails gng and nmusic.182.65.88.95 (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2017 (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 Ill Bill. Redirects ARE cheap. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God Is an Atheist

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

Entirely fails WP:NSONG: no in-depth reviews, no chart listing, and a total lack of secondary coverage. The lone "source" is a link to discogs, a user-edited website. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ill Bill as it's a valid search term. And like I've always said, there's nothing an agnostic can't do if he doesn't know whether he believes in it or not Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the song is too obscure to be a valid search term, so a redirect is not necessary. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing redirects are cheap then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Manasi

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

Autobiographical self-promotional article written entirely by SPAs (who are all clearly socks/meats of each other; listed below). Voceditenore has gamely given it a massive cleanup, but it still doesn't have any notability, even with her searching for more info. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; the only significant coverage seems to be five sentences here: [15]. (The Nickel City Opera bio is not at all reliable or independent.) See also discussion here: WT:WikiProject Opera#Need eyes on two articles.

Added article Matthias Daniel Manasi to the list of articles to be included in the AfD. It was created by one of the alleged Socks listed below. reddogsix (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This new one should be speedily deleted per WP:A10 (recently created duplicate of an existing topic). The text is identical to this version of Matthias Manasi. Voceditenore (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI SPA sock/meat farm

Musicintime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Operamadrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Espagna2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sinfoniaclassica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Discussione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Naplesclassic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Britishnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Stanfordnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ArtistForum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SaturnFakts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hubertangusta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PaoloFontanella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BuffaloOpera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.182.203.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
173.79.251.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.94.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.95.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.117.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.113.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.88.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.84.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.102.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.97.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
93.220.86.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:ec:23c3:b180:f530:210e:27b0:5eb3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2003:EC:23C0:DB7:7994:B9AE:2A0A:B9D6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have been unable, despite extensive searches, to find a single article about this German conductor/pianist or a single review of his work. Note that the link cited above with the five sentences about him [16] is not an independent source. It is a blurb on the website of the orchestra for whom he was conducting part of a concert. The subject fails WP:GNG and also fails the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. There is no significant recording career. The one listed in the article (where he plays the harpsichord on an opera recording, but was not the conductor), is the only one I could find. He has won no prizes (significant or otherwise). Voceditenore (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comprehensively fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, as pointed out above.Smerus (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may just be too early for an article, but for now Delete. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Double sharp (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Given the absurd persistence of the COI SPA sockfarm, both article titles should probably be salted if this AfD results in deletion. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the salting. Note also that given the latest shenanigans, I have started an SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArtistForum. Voceditenore (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt). Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2017 (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 Assala Nasri. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wala Tessaddeq

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. What little coverage I can find is insignificant and comes nowhere close to satisfying the aforementioned notability guideline. DrStrauss talk 12:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable album, "Among her most famous albums are "Eghdab i.e. Get angry "،" Wala tessadda 'i.e. Do not believe "، ([17]), "... وكذلك نجاح شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق» من كلمات..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7wtIAQAAIAAJ) --Soman (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the album mentioned in the last source sorry? You seem to be arguing against the deletion of the musician's article, something which I have not nominated. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The passage "شريطها الثاني «ولا تصدق", which can refer to both the album and the song. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. There isn't a standalone article on the song, if there was, it would most likely fail WP:NSONG. DrStrauss talk 21:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not at all notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Assala Nasri per WP:ATD-R. A Train^talk 09:37, 14 October 2017 (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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 FIA Formula One World Championship

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

Way to soon. I can see no difference with the rationales presented for deleting the 2020 season article. No specific content for 2019 has been published (e.g. new tracks or new driver contracts starting in 2019). This is just as much listing the multiple year contracts signed for an earlier season as the 2020 article is. T v x1 12:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is a significant difference between the 2018 and 2019 articles—namely that five of the top six drivers (Ricciardo, Verstappen, Räikkönen, Bottas and Hamilton) are out of contract at the end of 2018 and it has been public knowledge that some of the top teams have been sounding out those drivers. On top of that, Carlos Sainz's one-year deal with Renault will expire, and Red Bull do not have an engine deal in place beyond 2018. The encyclopaedic value of the article is not so much in what is confirmed, but in what is unresolved (as opposed to there being no information available). A lot of the critical analysis I have seen (such as this) supports this. We have a section in the list of races that notes which events are contracted for 2018 but not for 2019, so I think a section on drivers and teams who are free agents in 2019 (for want of a better term) is not only justified, but adds to the article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Prisonermonkeys (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD. [reply]
- Comment: I have updated the article with details of drivers out of contract. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you are genuinely suggesting now that we create and keep an article because of an "important" lack of verifiable information?? That's the most ridiculous argument I have ever read. What is so special about this situation? A Mercedes and Ferrari spot being possibly available isn't even unique for 2019. Bottas and Räikkönen had one-year contracts for 2017 as well, so that situation exist for the 2018 season as well. In fact, prior to Vettel extending his contract this summer, no 2018 Ferrari spot was filled. And that article wasn't created until December when some new 2018 information was published (the return of the French GP). We should create this article when new 2019 driver and/or race contracts are being announced. At this moment there is no difference between the 2019 and the 2020 articles. Both exist solely to tabulate the remain years on multiple-year contracts. Information which is easily conveyed in the individual articles. The last time the 2018 article was deleted, you supported the deletion and stated that a season article should only be created up to eighteen months in advance if significant new information about is known. Well, I don't see any significant new information for 2019 yet. So you should practice what you preach. And by the way, Verstappen's contract is NOT running out at the end of 2018.Tvx1 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: First of all, it is not a lack of verifiable information. We can verify that those drivers' contracts expire at the end of 2018 and thus there is currently a change for 2019. To claim so otherwise is to misrepresent the situation. Furthermore, removing reliable, well-sourced content to strengthen the case for an AfD is pretty under-handed. Secondly, why am I obligated to support this deletion simply because I supported a previous one? Why am I not allowed to change my mind? Why am I not allowed to assess each individual AfD on its merits and make a decision accordingly? Finally, in your AfD for the 2020 article, you said "One article on the upcoming season is already quite a task to manage. Two is already over the limit." which sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How quaint. Just as you claim I don't like it, your position can summarized as WP:ILIKEIT. Your just perceiving the number of out of contract drivers as being "sensational" when in fact is just something that happens nearly every year. Prior to this summer Vettel, Räikkönen, Bottas, Pérez, Vandoorne, Alonso, Palmer, Massa, Stroll, Ericsson, Wehrlein and Kvyat were all without contracts. The 2019 situation is hardly unique as you can see. And if that wasn't enough you're requesting to keep this based on your speculation that there will be a "similarly sensational" set of driver changes will take place, while for all I know they (or at least most of them) might just stay put. The 2018 article was deleted in late august 2018 for the exact same reasons as everyone (including you) wants the 2020 article deleted and this one was nominated. There is no significant new 2019 information known yet and therefore I cannot see how the many delete rationales presented in the 2020 AFD'd don't apply here. And just because content is well sourced it isn't automatically relevant to the subject. That's why I removed. I'd say that inventing new, never before used tables in a misguided attempt to keep this article is much more of an underhand tactic.T v x1 09:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually create season articles about ~18 months in advance, and this is 18 months beforehand. Also per Prisonermonkeys the uncertainty of many drivers is in itself notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, we create season articles when verifiable new information for that specific season is available. The 2018 article was created in late December 2016. Or more or less 12 months before the the start of the year 2018.T v x1 15:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is exactly the same case as for the 2020 season article. Similarly there is no apparent policy-based reason for not keeping the article, and that is what is required for a deletion request to succeed. WP:TOOSOON has been mentioned, but that is an essay relying on this policy-based statement: "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." As it is clear that this article satisfies the policy on notability, specifically from WP:GNG that it has gained sufficient coverage in reliable sources, then there is no apparent justification for deletion. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there is no evidence of this significant coverage in reliable sources. As of yet, no new driver contract, new race contract or rule change for the 2019 championship had been announced. A passing mention of the year in an article discusding a driver or a team or a different season is not the same as significant coverage. In fact, when you click on the find sources button on top of this AFD. Barely 8 links are produced, none of which contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. So if you want your policy or guideline that is failed here, it's WP:Notability. Judging by your ridiculous claim there is significant coverage of this subject, it's safe to say that you did not bother to do even a quick search for sources before leaving your comment here.Tvx1 10:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are currently 25 reliable sources used to support the driver and Grand Prix data in the article. And the search mentioned (even though it only looks for exact matches on on the complete article title, and not for other aspects of the 2019 season) turns up 8 hits. So clearly, the event is already notable per WP:GNG. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of these 25 uses reliable sources contains significant coverage of new information relating to the 2019 season. They just mention multiple-year contracts which are extrapolated to be also valid for this article. As I have explained before, passing mentions do not have any value in determining notability. And as I have also previously explained before, those 8 search hits do NOT contain any meaningful information about the 2019 championship. I'm beginning to think you do not understand our notability guidelines. There is literally no source right now which covers anything significant new thing for the 2019 championship.Tvx1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:GNG defines significant coverage as coverage that addresses "the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There is no requirement for the article to cover any "significant new thing". The 25 reliable sources used certainly provide significant coverage addressing the topic directly without needing original research and add up to provide the necessary significant coverage. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete, I've changed my mind following the deletion of the 2020 article that significant coverage per WP:GNG does not mean a passing mention in 25 sources, but detailed coverage in each of a few sources, and this article does not conform to that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is an almost identical AfD being discussed here for the 2020 FIA Formula One World Championship. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the outcome of one AfD should not affect the outcome of another. Reading the comments of both AfDs, it is clear (so far) that the community thinks it is WP:TOOSOON for the 2020 article, but not for 2019. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit early to judge the "community"'s opinion just not even 24 hours after this AFD was launched, don't you think. There is a reason AFD's have a minimum running time of 7 days, you know.T v x1 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no !vote, by the standard application of WP:TOOSOON it's probably a few months too soon, but deleting it seems overkill. Could this be moved to draft space until early 2018? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That’s certainly worth considering.Tvx1 17:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Kante4 (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree. Most of the opposition to this article stems from one editor's statement that managing two articles for future championships is difficult. At last count, I was managing eight articles for future championships (including this one) without a problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? You call one of them being put under full protection twice not a problem?Tvx1 21:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not a problem because the issue was contextual. It had to do with the validity of a source, with a deliberately-disruptive editor thrown in for good measure. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 21:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have had season articles about this event since 1950, and as long as there is some unique content to include, which there is, there seems no reason to delete this specifically because it has been created a bit early. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what unique content would you be talking about??T v x1 20:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the grand scheme of things the 2019 season is not actually that far away, I personally don't think it can qualify as WP:TOOSOON as contracts and signings will be planned months and years in advance. Deleting the article at this point would be pointless as by the beginning of 2018 there will already be news coming for plans for the 2019 season.Theprussian (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the information doesn't exist now. And the reality is that new 2019 contracts are most likely only to be signed twelve months from now. Right now they are singing up for 2018, not 2019. In fact right now, this article doesn't even pass the WP:GNG. It can always be moved to a draft and be republished as an article when specific information for 2019 becomes available.T v x1 16:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the season after next, which is not TOOSOON to have the article. There are drivers that have contracts for 2019 already. Mjroots (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I am an editor from huwiki, I only have a few edits here on enwiki but I am one of the main contributors to F1 articles in huwiki. I am also the one who started the brother page of the 2019 season in Hungarian at the end of September. Why do I think it should be kept? The article is already started. It is (or will be in a few months) without doubt notable, I think we can all agree on that. So if it is already started, why bother deleting it, just to create it like 3 months later again? It does not take up space or anything. There are millions of pages on enwiki, it does no harm if this one sole page stays here for 2-3 more months with this "little" content. When 2018 starts, new contracts will be announced for 2019, tracks and race calendar will be confirmed, new regulations will be announced. Also, if you think this article is too soon, what about 2030 FIFA World Cup? This article will slowly get into focus, and already has verifiable information, like 2 contracted top-drivers, or tracks who are already under contract. It just does not make sense to delete it. It is also easier to add pieces of confirmed information one by one to an existing article then to collect all of them like a year later. People might already be interested in 2019, they come here and see the drivers who are already contracted, the tracks, the new rules and so on. If you delete it, it is only a matter of time than you have to make it again. Then why bother? --XXLVenom999 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2017 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W64 Self-rescuer

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

Fails notability guidelines for products. A source search shows little independent, reliable coverage and the article is written like an advert-manual hybrid. DrStrauss talk 12:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- What a cool device! No point to include this advertisement when there is a perfectly good and balanced article at Self-contained_self-rescue_device that wasn't written by a SPA. Rhadow (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like an advert, no point bothering. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:38, 14 October 2017 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Friends at the End

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. The best reference I can find are obituaries to its founder [18] and passing mention of its support for a failed bill in the Scottish Parliament. Other than that it mainly directory type listings and notes in related websites about meetings.

Note: this article has been the subject of recent reversions by User:MelissaIndigo who doesn't seem aware of how Wikipedia works and doesn't leave edit summaries or engage in Talk. Possibly has an interest in the organization and possibly also a sockpuppet of User:Melissathebarber who edited the article back in 2010 along with other articles on related topics. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:21, 29 September 2017 (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. ansh 666 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Gomes

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, in that he is only a senior executive of a non-notable company. Dan arndt (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator says Gomes does not meet notability for businesspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, but why was this article created . so funny Samat lib (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple RS present: [19] [20] [21] [22]. Cossde (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source as most of its content is largely user-generated (see WP:IMDBREF). Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is anyone going to address the remaining three sources? Pinging Dan arndt, Randomeditor1000, Samat lib, and JPL.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ref [1] is all about Hela Clothing, (a non-notable company) and Dominic McVey, with side mentions about Gomes, as well as a number of other non-notable individuals. Ref [2] is IMDB. Ref [3] is about Hela Clothing. Ref [4] is about a self published autobiography by Gomes, by no details about whether the book was notable or even if copies of it actually sold or not. Even the author of the article questions it’s legitimacy. Dan arndt (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I concur with Dan arndt's evaluation of the references. IMDB is user submitted information, the others are not notable. I do not think this article passes muster as is. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Power Technologies

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

The sources provided are only passing mentions, failing corporation depth standards. A source search shows little in the way of significant coverage that suggests corporate notability. DrStrauss talk 10:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing significant coverage; does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Should have been deleted in 2009. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't approach WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filiph Sandström

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

Autobiography, mostly primary sources with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sole claim to notability is being "one of the first software developers to develop a fully featured application for the Nintendo 3DS homebrew scene". No significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy declined in 2015, so taking it to AFD. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a run-of-the-mill software developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom's concerns and my own evaluation for sources. --Izno (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever for notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim to notability. I can't find any sources in Swedish or English to show that he is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 09:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, someone who unofficially develops games for a console (ie not professional or employed) isn't exactly a likely path to Wikipedia's definition of notability anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 5 October 2017 (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. A Train^talk 08:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cityblis

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

I have previously objected to the deletion, but the website is gone now so the page is completely useless. iopq (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete biographies because people die, we don't delete articles about buildings because they're torn down, and we don't delete articles about companies because they no longer exist. Whether or not the company is no longer active is not relevant, only if they were notable and verifiable. History is important too. /Julle (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't particularly notable when it existed either. -iopq (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 29 September 2017 (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/2017 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that if kept/closed as no consensus, editing will have to be done to reflect its current status.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article about an online company. The article text and references describe its proposition and site features at start-up without making substantial claim to notability. There was a previous WP:PROD by an IP, which was rightly objected as the rationale was invalid: "This entity is referencing its, presumably, self-created article in unsolicited spam email. Presumably, this is to legitimize itself by reference. Propose deletion." Beyond the initial start-up announcement and some slightly later announcement coverage [23] I am seeing nothing in terms of in-depth coverage of the platform or, for that matter, for its presumed demise. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep WP:CORPDEPTH has been cited, but it says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This subject meets that. Capitals00 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG. The coverage is all of the launch (so not sustained), and largely in blogs/trade press websites that are now defunct. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- 100% advertorial content starting with the lead: "...interactive, multi-platform social eCommerce website...". Does not meet WP:NWEB / WP:CORPDEPTH either. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot Young Scientists

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

Ineligible for PROD due to de-PROD in 2006.

Despite searching I can't find any independent, reliable sources, in Greek or in English. To be fair I don't speak Greek but I can't even see anything on Google with the Greek name that's a news or otherwise reliable source. In English, all the books that mention them are published by or in partnership with the group, so aren't RS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notabilty. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2017 (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 Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Goa Campus. if people want to merge, it can be merged from the page history at editorial discretion or with discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spree (festival)

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

Local festival of little notability. Doesn't pass WP:EVENTCRIT or WP:GNG. Muhandes (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Goa Campus. No evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk)

I would have proposed a merge, but I see no non-trivial material to merge. Other than mentioning the festival exists, and since when, I don't think there is much to say. --Muhandes (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(contrib) 08:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect: The wording is promotional, full of exhortations about what "you" may do at the event: suitable for a college intranet or brochure but not for an encyclopaedia. Nor is there evidence that this student event is of encyclopaedic notability. The existing coverage in a bullet point at Birla_Institute_of_Technology_and_Science,_Pilani_–_Goa_Campus#Student_life is adequate. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Turkmenistan relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article uses WP:SYNTH to invent notable relations when there really isn't any. 4 of the 6 sources refer to a one off statement in 2013 that didn't result in anything. the other 2 is a pipeline interest that didn't result in anything. no embassies, no agreements, no leader or minister visits. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone finds evidence of embassies, meetings. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2017 (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. ansh 666 07:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC SKULE

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No indication of notability per WP: MUSICBIO or WP:ACADEMIC, and no significant coverage online from WP:RS, just some local coverage from the student newspaper of his alma mater. He worked briefly with a notable producer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting this discussion to improve the article. A couple sources that aren't his alma mater's newspaper have been added. Searching for more national coverage to see if notability can be established. Found a few video news story but they are YouTube uploads - would this be considered credible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tihg6sQFmtk — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube can be a reliable source in some circumstances, such as a clip of a broadcast from a notable concert, an interview from a reliable news source, etc. Please feel free to ask at my talk page if I can be of any assistance. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the YouTube link mentioned by CharlesBluth, and found an additional post of the same video by the Channel itself rather than someone's own upload of the news clip. -Jayden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.206.81.74 (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to have improved drastically since its original creation, likely due to this discussion. Sources from beyond just a student newspaper have been added, to the point where notability seems to have been established from credible news stations, not just imdb and the high viewcount on a verified facebook. 47.19.88.20 (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC) — 47.19.88.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Although the article has been reworked, it has not been improved per the quality of references. In addition to school news, social media and user download sources like you tube, there is a first person promotional interview with an inspirational wordpress blog and a clip from a soft news segment on local television. The only source that might be third party is The Ann Arbor News, but the article—a standard piece on a local business— is largely the subject talking about himself. Simply not enough to merit wikipedia notability. Also worth noting that claims of working with a Grammy winning producer can’t be verified; the Grammys data base does not list this producer as having ever been nominated, let alone a winner. ShelbyMarion (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: Article Creator) I'd like to formally first of all apologize for creating the article in a hurry and inadequately citing and relying on Facebook primariliy as evidence rather than references in the first draft. The article now seems to be a lot more rigorous than my original creation, and while I do think that having a verified facebook page with viewcounts in the millions should serve as some evidence of "notability" (and therefore that it would be of general interest to see an objective, trust-worthy informational piece on the subject on Wikipedia), I understand that many external sources are needed to justify this. I think that those seem to have been added by others. So, I think that this version of the article should be kept and that the writing is not at all promotional or biased, and simply objectively states fact about an educator with some notability (I wouldn't consider this person a "musician" per se since his primary occupation is teaching). CharlesBluth (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: CharlesBluth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Keep I think that this educator stub should be kept - while there aren't tons of references, I think that there are enough high quality third party references to at least merit a stub with this succinct, basic information that can be verified. Having collaborated with a notable producer and notable bollywood director shouldn't mean the notability is inherited, but having media coverage from that is what makes it notable. While two of the "third party" references are a student newspaper, we should consider that (according to its own wikipedia page) that student news paper has hundreds of thousands of visitors per month, and covers news beyond just the university. Additionally, the video clip from the Channel 4 news also seems notable (even though it's a YouTube upload) because it is an NBC affiliated station representing Detroit, which is one of the largest cities in the US - I'd imagine fairly competitive to get coverage on, and would certainly count as a "third party". The Ann Arbor News is similarly a third party reference, and all of these references cover this educator for his doing something creative with education itself - not just a teacher who got news coverage for his video game collection, for example. If this were about a musician, notability would be questionable, but other wikipedia articles on notable educators seem to have a similar level of references counting as sufficient for educator notability - coverage in a few large (not necessarily national) third party sources for that educator's work within education. This seems to be met. The only reference that was very weak was that someone above me mentioned, the "Inspirational Souls" blog where the subject did an interview talking about his work, and since it isn't clear how notable this "Inspirational Souls" blog is or whether it's a third party, I removed that reference and the information from it. So, I see no reason to delete this article because as someone else above said there is no promotional, fluff, or controversial sentences, and no detailed information (such as family or personal history) that wouldn't be of general interest, and the information about this educator's notability is well cited with third party references, in addition to the facebook links which add to the article by letting us reference the exact view counts that are stated, without relying on Facebook as the primary source. The only reason I think that the facebook links do add value to the article is because the page linked is verified, and from what I understand one cannot "request" verification, so Facebook must have determined that the page was notable enough to merit verification - again, that alone shouldn't be used to establish Wikipedia notability, but it helps to have those as additional references to verify viewcounts mentioned in the news articles. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC) — Ashleyreynolds (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment the article creator, the anonymous editor and the new account created five hours after the article was nominated for deletion have all claimed that his Facebook view count is evidence of notability, but this is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Per ShelbyMarion above, so far there's insufficient evidence of significant coverage from WP:SECONDARY, WP:Reliable sources showing notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Regarding the comparison with other articles on educators, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Mr. MacTidy - I came to this article from the AfD articles about Michigan, of which there are only a handful, and since I'm new to wikipedia (as you pointed out, timing coincidence) I wasn't aware that FB shouldn't be used. Also, I've edited much more than this article in the week that i've been on wikipedia so far, trying to stay within my areas of specialty/Michigan as you can see. I have no conflict of interest or personal stake on whether this stub is deleted or not, just thought I'd put my two cents in since it's about a(in my opinion notable) viral teacher in the state i live in. Ashleyreynolds (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the "anonymous editor" actually stated the opposite; that facebook and imdb should NOT be used. After reading that comment I actually deleted one imdb link and later one FB link. I did mention FB as indication of notability, and Ashleyreynolds did second that statement, but they also agreed with certain statements made by the editor who voted to delete, and as such they removed one of the sources I originally put with explanation. Either way, none of this will matter since the closing admin won't look at the headcount, but rather just the collective arguments on both sides. In general, this has been a very civil discussion on both sides, so I thank everyone for that. :) CharlesBluth (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Courtesy the impressive puppetry....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local-only news coverage and view counts are not enough to persuade me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NMUSIC.All refrences are local newspapers and lack indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2017 (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 and move to Wellington College of Education. Sources provided and article improved. ansh 666 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Education of Victoria University of Wellington

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged since April 2012. Steve Quinn moved the article to the draft namespace twice even though the article has existed since 2003 and GB fan recommended an AfD. I also did a further move from Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Education to the above title. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 00:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest standalone notability to meet WP:ORG. oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual faculties within universities are generally not notable unless there are a range of independent sources providing this, none of which can be found. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Often we discover that individual segments of a University lack independent coverage in reliable sources, and this seems to be the case. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problem here is that the article is incomplete and misses a significant amount of background history. The faculty, as mentioned in the article was formerly a completely independent body called the Wellington College of Education, whose primary role was to train school teachers. Had information and background on the College been included it would be sufficient in itself to meet WP:GNG and other guidelines. In essence the article needs work and expansion relating to the faculties history. Had it just been a faculty in the University I would agree with the delete. NealeFamily (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that it once was the Wellington College of Education, which is easy enough to find historical sources about (a sampling, quickly arrived at: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]). XOR'easter (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No-notable , however the article requires a reliable sources from at least 4 to 5 reliable publishers . not just from one source Samat lib (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added the six sources I listed in my !vote above to the article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NealeFamily and XOR'easter. As a "faculty of education" it does not sound notable, but it is the current embodiment of an institution with a 137-year history -- it is older than the university itself! The references added by XOR'easter address the complaints that there were no reliable sources cited. -- Gpc62 (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify to focus in previous separate institution because that trivially meets Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education. I'm happy to do the stubifying if pinged by the closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have a conflict of interest with this institution. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The IP edit that triggered the move that triggered this AfD was made from with the institutions' public IP address range. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move article to ‘Wellington College of Education’, as that’s where the notability lies. What has become of the school can then be mentioned. Schwede 66 16:44, 5 October 2017 (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. A merge, which won some support, can be discussed at the talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sutil Island

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

WP:GEOLAND is the guideline covering notability of islands. It says "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." So far it doesn't look like there are enough sources to build a real article (including from a cursory Google search), but maybe some new ones could be found. Otherwise, it should be merged into Santa Barbara Island. Kaldari (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. It's a small (12 acre) and rocky island, but there are sufficient natural history and other sources to source a small article. Even if not, however, outright deletion is inappropriate, as merger with Santa Barbara Island or Channel Islands (California) would be appropriate. Neutrality^talk 05:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough sources covering it in sufficient detail for a geographic feature e.g. 1, 2.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah, there's enough present for a brief article. A merge, however, would not be inappropriate. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2017 (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. The "keep" opinions do not address the actual sourcing status of this article, but only refer to a supposed consensus for keeping all secondary schools. All who have followed the RfCs and discussions about this topic know that this is precisely an issue on which the community has no consensus. The "keep" opinions must therefore be discounted as weakly argued. Sandstein 09:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn School

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

Article's sole source is to the school itself, and the text proper is promotional. Google News turns up only the school's Facebook page with quotes, and irrelevant news stories without. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 08:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete. per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 09:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC) My original vote was based on my (clearly incorrect) assumption this was a primary school. Dysklyver 08:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NORG and WP:NOTPROMO. Pburka (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the longstanding precedent and consensus that was explicitly rejected back in February? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<Sigh> No, it wasn't! The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because few have been taken to AfD or because you keep citing-not-citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and not pointing people to the RfC? At this point you're about to be put in the same class of editors as Flagged Revisions supporters to me. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jéské Couriano ('Jeremy'), I'll repeat Necrothesp's comment in case you missed it: The RfC was completely inconclusive and does not override existing consensus. This has been discussed endlessly since and still almost no secondary school articles have been deleted. If there is any consensus, it is the one that that RfC didn't have one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not buying it. The first line in the summarisation of the close is: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The closer also makes note that any argument on that ground essentially boils down to appeal to tradition circular reasoning, as opposed to the arguments agaimnst it whiich actually pointed to relevant Wikipedia policies. In other words, your "per longstanding precedent and consensus" argument was in fact explicitly rejected in the RfC, no matter how you try to spin it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Yes, the RfC did not override existing consensus on the notability of secondary schools. It did however, effectively override existing consensus by making these such AfDs such heavily participated that both the consensus' you pointed out are being overruled as people are actually reading the closure. please read this: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, which was actually the consensus, making all of this extremely hard to understand. Unless I missed something, in which case it would go completely bollocks. :) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of reliable, independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if it was inconclusive, the summary of the RfC on secondary school notability identified above includes the following:

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media.

The article should not be deleted without a thorough search for reliable sources, which should ideally include local print-only newspapers and sources in languages other than English. I know that this will not be feasible for most editors. This is particularly important for schools outside first world countries where web coverage, English-language sources and Wikpedia editors are less common, because of the risk of systemic bias. The article does not appear to be a hoax, and school's website suggests that the school is large enough to be notable. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher, I have searched the 462 Indian sources archived by LexisNexis, and not found any coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry thank you. However, the LexisNexis website says that are for "seeking legal solutions, news & business insights", which does not indicate a focus on this area. Their 462 Indian sources is not impressive in the context of Media of India which says that India has more than 70,000 newspapers. Does it cover the sources listed in Media in Chennai, particularly the Tamil language newspapers and the local newspapers? Verbcatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It includes many newspapers, but not in Tamil and more focused on the national and regional level than the local. However, I would argue that without any independent sources available to us, there is nothing to base on article on at present. If local coverage is found at a later date, then perhaps the article could be recreated based on that coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Larry, for what it's worth. Once we start seeing usable independent sources, I have no objection to re-creating the article, but with the sources we can find right now nothing doing. The language barrier is going to be a significant issue here, especially as more and more schools from the Subcontinent are going to be looking at Wikipedia as free Google ranking. I just wish automated translation of those languages didn't return broken English at best. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Local media gives nothing relevant or significant.(I mean the state dailies et al)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is not kept then it should be merged into Nolambur, where the school is located, with a redirect. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independent sources, Kudpung? My understanding of the consensus (whether it still remains or not is debatable) is that it involved keeping articles only when independent sources existed. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the RFC from February 2017 that states (among others) Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a medium to promote a school. The Banner talk 14:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That RfC also states: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning.. In fact as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus is nothing more than [[WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES] but than without mentioning WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and so circular reasoning. The Banner talk 14:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARS Public School, another school in India, where the same issues apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful redirect (or smerge) (in)to Nolambur per longstanding precedent for schools not kept at AfDs – Upon reading through the closure of [the February RFCI have found that the closure is confusing and inconclusive, but from my understanding the result was 'no consensus, defaulting to status quo. However—rather surprisingly, in fact—I have found not a single reliable source that is independent of the subject. If some editor can find some, I will change my !vote to weak keep (second choice, per this being in a third-world area with limited news coverage) per the outcome of the RfC. Also, Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist was the status quo back then; existence has to be verified by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. I believe though, that the correct interpretation would of been reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Now though, school AfDs have become much further scrutinised because of the RfC, and I feel that is a slightly negative aspect. I cannot find any mentions of the school, which is probably because the school was made only in 2008. As a further note, promotional language is a content issue and ought to be discussed at the article's talk page, not here. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unconvinced by the argument that sources might exist but we can't find them; they might not and even if they do, until they are found, they can't be used. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Pinkbeast, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, Jéské Couriano, J947, Cordless Larry, reasons for not deleting this article are clearly laid out at WP:ATD-R (Alternatives to deletion) - a policy, not an essay or a guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the reasons why my !vote was redirect. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 02:11, 7 October 2017 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rakib Mosabbir

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

References are not from reliable source. All of the references are from unreliable, Non-notable news media. Mar11 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion rationale needs further explanation. The New Nation, The Daily Observer, Janakantha, Banglanews24.com, Amar Desh, and Risingbd.com are all major Bangladeshi newspapers and media outlets, reliable for the sort of information for which news organizations are usually reliable. Two don't have Wikipedia articles yet, but that doesn't mean that they aren't notable. Besides which, sources need not be notable to be reliable. The only questionable source is the subject's blog. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep we may need help from some Bengali speakers but subject seems notable, for now I am voting weak keep because I am yet to see more policy based discussions. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2017 (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 Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. Selectively. This is a compromise outcome, but we do have a consensus here that this does not merit a full article. Sandstein 09:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chinese memes war on Facebook

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

The article still reads like a propaganda piece. Recommend deletion as the article was not rewritten to meet quality standards before repost. Lasersharp (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have already been waiting for your 2nd nomination. Now it is time to have this debate, in order to check out whether it is a propaganda or not. If not, then it requires to check why this vandalizing nomination exists. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there exists any propaganda. --Yejianfei (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2017 (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/2017 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trim extensively and merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion. It doesn't read like a propaganda piece, but there are definite problems, including POV, trivia, and the fact that no other article links to it. I'm rather astonished it passes WP:N, but I think it does. That said, the article could easily be condensed to a paragraph without losing much if any notable information. Here's a suggestion:

2016 meme war

In January 2016, the leader of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party, Tsai Ing-wen, was elected to the presidency of the Republic of China. On 20 January thousands of mainland Chinese internet users, primarily from the forum "Li Yi Tieba" (李毅貼吧), bypassed the Great Firewall of China to flood with messages and stickers the Facebook pages of the president-elect, Taiwanese news agencies Apple Daily and SET News, and other individuals to protest the idea of Taiwanese independence.

Not sure exactly which sources I'd pick to support that condensation, and it could use a copy-edit, but I think it gets across the salient points without getting into trivial detail. Snuge purveyor (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, but it is just an event. Is it a taboo to write an article completely about an event, just like 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting or 2017 Catalonia attacks? Why should it be merged into an opinion article? Should the article 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting be merged into the article LGBT#Public opinion? No, because it is just an article on an event. So why is it so difficult to regard this article as an event? --Yejianfei (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would also be appropriate as a paragraph on the Tsai Ing-wen article. It doesn't necessarily need to be trimmed as drastically as I did above, but I do not believe the event requires as much detail as is in the article, and would characterise the sections "Use of stickers and memes" and "Opinions" as consisting entirely of trivia. My third option would be a weak delete, as the event is not likely to have any enduring legacy. The article even claims that one view is that it was a "fun normal incident". I understand you feel protective of your work, but comparing this incident to terror attacks which killed dozens of humans is not only distasteful but a category error. Power~enwiki hits nearer the mark in comparing it to a 4chan raid. Snuge purveyor (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It was an internet riot in which a specific group of people protested against another specific group of people, rather than Tsai Ing-wen. Actually, it is just like May 1998 riots of Indonesia, in which it is not suitable to say it is an incident on only one person. As a result, it is strange to ask for merging it into either Tsai Ing-wen or Chou Tzu-yu. (2) Isn't it suitable to make a separate article to talk about the 4chan raid? It is also a notable event. Why shouldn't it have a separate article? --Yejianfei (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated comparisons of this mutual message flood to actual violence are not helping your case. Over a thousand people were killed in those riots you just linked, a government fell, and a country was born. So far, the consequences of this facebook raid are: …? The only reason I believe it passes our guideline for the notability of an event is because it was a mass circumvention of the Great Firewall. Outside of that the whole episode reads like a "reaction to" (success of the DPP in Taiwan / some kid with a flag on tv) article, which the community hates. That is why I suggested merging the content.

4chan performs many raids and to my knowledge, none of them have been notable enough to warrant their own article. That is the point of Power~enwiki's comparison below. Snuge purveyor (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk about WP:EVENT

(1)Lasting effects: An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Passed, people still care about it in 2017.

(2)Geographical scope: Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. Passed, the population relevant to this event is 100000^[1].

(3) An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. (3) Depth of coverage: An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. Passed, there are enough links in the "references" section.

(4) Duration of coverage: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. Passed, the links are from 2016 to 2017, long enough.

(5) Diversity of sources: Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted. Passed, there are news from various website, including BBC, CNN News, Reuters, the Wall Street Joural, SET News, Liberty Times, etc. --Yejianfei (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still think this "war" is mostly POV promotion and puffery. Some Chinese people posted something on Facebook. The breathless narrative hides the fact that this is akin to a 4chan raid. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "War" is just an euphemism for "mutual message flood", but it is more concise. Moreover, if the more accurate name "mutual message flood" is used in the title, it will seem to be an "original name" which breaks WP:NOR. --Yejianfei (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons provided by Yejianfei. If there is problem with title then we can do a page move request later. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge into Cross-Strait relations#Public opinion per Snuge purveyor. While a single event can be notable, it isn't always, and this is clearly the kind of event that makes more sense to read about in context. Remember, the existence of sources doesn't guarantee a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2017 (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. A Train^talk 08:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Under 20 Elite League

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

Per OTRS 2017090710018144

"A few months ago there were plans to establish this tournament but in agreement with UEFA it was decided to shelve the Under 20 Elite League. The scheduled matches between the teams involved will be played as friendly games, but will logically not be counted in a competition form or league table." S Philbrick (Talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have articles saying that this tournament has been shelved and it is all friendlies, because as it stands I would vote for keep off current information NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with comment above. If the tournament has been cancelled or similar, there is no basis for an article to cover it. But so far the information states that it is going ahead in some form. What is the source for the quote above underpinning the rationale for deletion? Crowsus (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can the proposer please provide their evidence for the tournament concept being disbanded, otherwise this is kind of a pointless exercise? Crowsus (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a source saying the tournament has been disbanded, and in light of the Italian Football Federation explicitly referring to this tournament in a match report from earlier this month (albeit referring to it as the "8 Nations Tournament" rather than Under 20 Elite League) Keep, and possibly Move. OZOO (t) (c) 15:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Under-20 Four Nations Tournament (and rename the target page). [30] appears to be a source for results. While the matches appear to exist, if we can't determine what the over-all event is even called, it almost certainly is not notable enough to have a page specifically for this year's competition. Including the individual match results is likely WP:UNDUE, I'll ping Wikipedia:WikiProject Football for comment on that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the name, the official name was never known, Italian refer as Torneo Quattro Nazioni Under-20, German refer it as Internationalen U-20 Spielrunde in the past editions. So it need a reliable source for the new names "Under 20 Elite League" and "8 Nations Tournament". Matthew_hk t c 12:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we are waiting on external information here. Also need an answer on GiantSnowman's notability question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Huh? I don't understand your relisting comment. What GiantSnowman notability question needs an answer? ClubOranje^T 12:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- response to some above questions the matches are considered friendlies according to this. This will be because it is an invitational league organised by German FA, not a UEFA or FIFA organised event. It is definitely happening and results are here amongst other places. It appears to be an expansion of the 4 nations tournament but I can't find the ref back for that just now. That 4 nations tournament is effectively unreferenced currently. All the streaming sites and both sites I refernced above refer to it as Under 20 Elite League. ClubOranje^T 12:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The four nation was based on DFB database and FIGC database Swiss FA database and press release by FIGC, but since subsequent material added by other user, i am not sure still able to find the material they use or not. http://vivoazzurro.it seem a good (secondary) source. Not search RSSSF yet. Matthew_hk t c 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reasons to delete this competition article with huge amount of sources. 95.133.219.133 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James-J Walsh

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

Non notable. A Labour Cllr who works for a students' union. Danielle1238 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. He is in the "top 10 most influential LGBT people in the UK by The Independent newspaper's Pink List". Meets WP:GNG and since WP:NPOL does not supersede GNG, this is an obvious keep. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How so? DrStrauss talk 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not of anything that the article says in its text. Of the nine sources here, six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he isn't the subject of any of the three remaining reliable sources — two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of something else, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the third. This is not how a person gets over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on one of the meriads of "top x number y people in z" lists does not make someone notable, especially since these are usually annaul lists. His actual level as a politician also does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at a superficial first glance this looks like an obvious keep. However, a deeper analysis has led me to opt for delete.

The article lists nine sources. Let's evaluate each of them in terms of how they satisfy notability guidelines.

...is from the BBC, which is a reliable source. However, it only mentions Walsh in passing and does not indicate his contributions to the LGBT community which led to him receiving this accolade - if you can call it that.
...is similarly just a passing mention that just states he is on the list.
...is an affiliated source which confers no notability whatsoever. Notability is established by independent, reliable sources.
...is inaccessible.
...gives him the most coverage of all of the sources but is still woefully short of establishing notability and merely quotes Walsh on a certain topic and then carries on.
...is LinkedIn which does not give any notability.
...is a two-word quote on a blog from Walsh on a standalone issue.
...was written by Walsh himself, again failing the independent source clause.
...is inaccessible.

His inclusion on a list which has gained media attention does not mean he inherits notability from the list.

For what it's worth, it could be argued that this is a one-event case as all the coverage came around the time of legalisation of gay marriage - an argument I myself would not consider to be particularly pressing given the extended source rebuttal I have provided.

Furthermore, his political position alone is a failure of politician notability guidelines so inclusion on that criterion is out as well.

DrStrauss talk 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the compelling arguments of DrStrauss and Bearcat. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only as per DrStrauss and Bearcat, but also because with political activists and minor politicians, I like to see at least one profile in an independent source, preferably by a journalist in a widely recognized publication; here, however, the closest we get to an article about him is his linked-in profile and a post on teh organization of a political activism organization. Although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, Walsh's notability is not validated by WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2017 (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 Saina Nehwal. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Saina Nehwal Biopic

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

A quick google search says that there is a film that has been confirmed but they haven't given it a name. Its too soon to create a page with the name, 'untitled film_name'. μ Talk 07:07, 29 September 2017 (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/2017 September 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saina Nehwal, where a succinct sentence can be added to the effect of "a film based on Nehwal's life is in development". Per WP:NFF, films that have not begun primary filming should not have their own articles. See for instance Gambit (upcoming film).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georges-Albert Puyou de Pouvourville (2nd nomination)

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 Everlife#EP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's Beautiful

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

Rather self-evident: it's a track listing with no significant coverage. A WP:BEFORE search only confirms my belief that this is an absolute failure for WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everlife § EP per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above; release by a notable band makes it a plausible search term, but I'm not seeing coverage for this EP to warrant an individual article. gongshow talk 17:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Azhar University – Doha

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

Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have been unable to find any sources that confirm that this university exists, other than those that appear to be derived from Wikipedia. Should not be confused with Al-Azhar University in Cairo or Al-Azhar University – Gaza. The external link in the article appears to refer to the University in Cairo (based on Google Translate, also it has the .eg top-level domain for Egypt). The university is not mentioned in Doha or in Education in Qatar, and there are no significant incoming links. A Google translation of the corresponding Arabic Wikipedia article[31] indicates that this has essentially the same text and has no additional sources. I found nothing useful with a normal Google search, nor with Google News, Google News Archive, Google Books or Google Scholar. There has been no response to my note on the talk page for nearly eight months. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried a thorough search of google, google news and google books for any references to an Al-Azhar University in Doha, Qatar. That search only turned up duplicate copies of the Wikipedia article, multiple references to the Al-Azhar Universities in Cairo and Gaza and not much else. It would appear that this may indeed be a candidate for G3 hoax deletion. The only reference ever entered into the article specifies, at least by my reading, the Cairo Univeristy; The student of the Faculty of Medicine of Al-Azhar for Boys won the first place in the competition of the social gathering of social researches at the level of the Egyptian universities on the subject of human rights associations and its role in the advancement of society and the student received a financial award and certificate of appreciation and shield of participation which would be a reference to Al-Azhar University-Faculty of Medicine for Boys in Cairo. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack any evidence that this project has actually come into being.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons mentioned above. There's no evidence we know of which proves that this university exists, and the only reference cited in the article doesn't mention Qatar or Doha anywhere. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if existence of this institution can not be confirmed. Ping me if that changes. Carrite (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Borančić

This is an exemplary case of self-promotion by a non-notable person trying to promote themselves through Wikipedia. The person is as marginal as it gets, and fails to fulfill the notability criteria. Sideshow Bob 06:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, please take note that this article was created by User:Libero2211, obviously closely acquainted to this person (or quite probably, the person himself), who created or edited only four articles, all related to the Liberal Party of Montenegro, as the username (Libero) suggests. Sideshow Bob 13:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's main role is confirmed by a brief summary of a recent conference which is reproduced in various media, one of which I have added as a reference. However, being quoted in-role for a party youth organisation is not in itself substantial evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Nor are the subject's other affiliations, including am-dram activity, evidence of notability: fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being president of a political party's youth chapter is not an WP:NPOL pass. It can be enough for an article if the person can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage about him to clear WP:GNG — but it in no way hands him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and this isn't showing anything even approaching the lower bound of enough media coverage about him to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2017 (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. Before renominating, consider merging to HOT article. So Why 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Granot Goldstein

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of HOT, one of Israel's leading telecom companies (cable tv, data, land lines, and cellular). She has lots of coverage in Hebrew [32]. HOT is no longer public, but when it was a few years ago it had a market cap of around a billion USD. It is currently worth more (possibly as high as 3, probably around 1.5.Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article needs sourcing, but sources exist for this CEO os a major corporation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: it would be useful if you could list a couple of specific sources which you consider meeting WP:BIO. Then people could evaluate those. And, I suggest this be relisted (yes, a third time), to allow another week for this to happen.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The coverage offered above is routine, as in:

"Hal Granot Goldstein, CEO of the HOT Group, said: "Alongside the expansion of HOT's core product and the launch of HOT [something], and soon Netflix integration into the product..." Etc.

Source: "The competition for viewers continues: HOT launches Rami Levy's television". This is just the subject promoting the company; it's not a source about her.

Such coverage does not establish notability independent of the company, and notability is not inherited from it. A $1bln company is not large enough for its CEO to be presumed notable. If there are better sources available, I'd be happy to look at them. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Run-of-the-mill executive. The RS mentions are brief and routine, subject doesn't seem to have attracted in-depth coverage sufficient to establish notability.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and more Edit subject is notable but the references should be more improved Leodikap (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Leodikap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Non-notable CEO with limited depth of coverage beyond press releases. Per PohranicniStraze, WP:MILL applies as the subject did not accomplish anything that would make her stand out from other CEOs in the industry, and thus should not be considered of encyclopedic value. Note that her primary achievement (CEO of HOT) should not convey undue notability on her per WP:NOTINHERITED.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as far as her title, I'm unsure of the relationship between HOT and Altice; [33] suggests they were merged as of 2016, but Altice suggests the merger hasn't happened yet. I've added the inter-wiki link to her page on the Hebrew wikipedia, which does have more references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that HOT is fully owned by Altice. Patrick Drahi bought control of HOT, a few years ago, and when they went private (buying out all or most of the other shareholders, and redeeming issued bonds) - it was placed under the Altice structure. The company is however an Israeli company (and I believe it is required to be so). Granot Goldstein is one of the youngest (male or female) CEOs of a major Israeli company (which HOT is - a market cap of over a billion USD is considered big in Israel). The name of HOT may change in the future to Altice, or Altice Israel (they are discussing this, hasn't been finalized yet).Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Regarding a full merger (and not a subsidiary wholly owned by Altice, possibly with the Altice brand (not yet)) - I believe this is not possible in the regulatory framework - which requires an Israeli company for several of HOT's operations.Icewhiz (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2017 (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 Battle of Nanchang. Seems to already be carried out, redirected and everything. No point in keeping it open any longer, since consensus seemed to be pretty much formed before the relist. ansh 666 03:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Xiushui River

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

Has never had any sources in its edit history, and does not appear to be significant, mostly part of Battle of Xuzhou. (Delete or redirect) IEsuredI (talk) 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: G'day, not sure about this yet, but if redirected, I think the Battle of Nanchang article would be a more appropriate target than the Battle of Xuzhou article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (changed from delete) - ~~As far as I can gather, and I have been trying, this battle has been misnamed at best and didn't happen at worst.~~ The Battle of Xuzhou (Jiangsu province) happened in 1938 some 800 kilometres away from the Xiushui river (Jiangxi province) according to Google Maps, so that can't possibly be the correct target for a redirect. Furthermore, the article itself specifies that this engagement was part of the Battle of Nanchang. Assuming this battle happened, as stated, in March at the river, which is around the same time as the Battle of Nanchang, then it makes sense to redirect it there. However, I mention that this battle may not have occured at all, and I base this on the source used at the article for the Battle of Nanchang. You see this source states that; The first action took place at Wucheng in Jiangxi Province, where Japanese troops were held down by Chinese positions near the Xiushui River for four days .... The other relevant quote, which contradicts the first, is Chinese troops repulsed a Japanese attack across the Xiushui River near Wucheng, Jiangxi Province, China. Indeed, Wuchengzhen (Wucheng is in Zhejiang and Wuchang is at Wuhan) is located between the rivers of Xiushui and Ganjiang[34]. So, at the very least, the placement of the battle is incorrect according to the cited source. The idea that a battle may have occurred here is supported by this source which states; The Japanese had come to the conclusion that in order to control the central Yangtze valley they would need to destroy IX War Zone south of Wuhan and west of Poyang Lake. To do that they would drive south on the west side of the lake to the city of Nanchang with their 11th army, recent victors at Wuhan. The Japanese offensive kicked off on 17 March 1939 and met with only few instances of hard fighting. The source, however, doesn't state where this hard fighting happened. Wuchengzhen is located, coincidentally, on the west side of Poyang Lake, and south of Wuhan. In terms of Xiushui, however, all I could find was a reference to Japanese troops following the Xiushui river, from the recently captured Nanchang, on their approach to Changsha with no battle whatsoever. This might seem odd as Changsha is another 500 kilometres from Xiushui river, again, according to Google Maps. The best that I could do was to follow Google Maps and chart a route via google maps from Xiushui river, but, that's semi-OR. This leads me to the final question, do we rename or simply delete the article. I have done as thorough a search as possible, and have found no reference to a battle at Xiushui, and only one reference to a battle at or near Wuchengzhen. I think deletion is the appropriate action here. The only reference that I could find to the battle comes from a C. Peter Chen who appears to be a software engineer with an interest in history, but, isn't a historian. This leaves me with my only available source being of some dubious authorship/scholarship. If perhaps the author had listed their sources for the material, I might be inclined to look at them as well. As they haven't, I can't verify any of their information. Furthermore, they keep saying Wucheng, which as I've stated, is in a different province completely. So, I have to come to the conclusion that this article fails WP:V and as such, should be deleted. TL;DR - The information in the article is unverifiable, the source it appears to come from is of dubious scholarship given that the author is a software technician and not a historian, and as such I come to the conclusion that the article should be deleted. Well, after being notified, I did a second search through the article, refer to my second comment for findings. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wucheng = Wuchengzhen. "Zhen" is just a Chinese word meaning "town", and the Chinese language employs no spaces. The en.wp convention is to omit "zhen" just like the source. You are right there is a Wucheng in Zhejiang, but there are also multiple Wucheng's in Jiangxi, such as our Wucheng, Yongxiu County (zh:吴城镇 (永修县)) and Wucheng Township, Zhangshu (which IS NOT on the Xiushui River despite what the article says). Timmyshin (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information regarding the meaning of "zhen" and the multiple Wuchengs in China. Prompted by your message and !vote, I did, after a second read through of the article, find this article, which I had missed the first time, that specifies the battle with minor details; MajGen Sumita's 6th Field Heavy Artillery Brigade bombards Chinese positions in support of the IJAs crossing of the Xiushui River, but after meeting little resistance, cease the bombardment. Japanese troops successfully cross the river barrier and IJA troops, supported by aircraft and tanks, break out of the Xiushui River bridgehead, defeat Chinese reinforcements and reach the west gate of Nanchang. It's not much, but, it's enough to verify the battle. So, redirect is fine. That said, there are still zero citations in the article itself, I'm not sure that a merge can be performed. Any chance you have any other sources to look at? Mr rnddude (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can try other spellings of Xiushui: Hsiushui, Hsiu River, Hsiu-shui, Xiu River, Xiu-shui etc. This appears to be a good source: [35] Timmyshin (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Nanchang. The battle did exist and the Nanchang article already contains many details about the Xiushui battle. I don't think there's enough information for a stand-alone article and the Nanchang article isn't very long. Timmyshin (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Nanchang. In fact I'll work on the Nanchang article to incorporate any missing information from Xiushui, as there isn't much to begin with. Alex Shih ^Talk 05:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge because it's not notable. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2017 (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. Consensus leans towards this being WP:TOOSOON. Her single major role doesn't push her into WP:NACTOR, and the coverage isn't at WP:GNG territory. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Birney

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Her parents won awards, but notability is not inherited. Probably just WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment doesn't meet the criteria. Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a starring role in The Mist (TV series) and is described as "starring" in the upcoming Best Day of My Life (film) with Sarah Jessica Parker, Jacqueline Bisset, and Renée Zellweger, which began filming in July. Thus she satisfies WP:ENT, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She also has the eponymous starring role in a completed independent film Darcy, but I'm sceptical if the film itself is notable enough. Edwardx (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she has not yet had multiple significant roles in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An alleged starring role in an unfinished film means she is not yet notable. WP:TOOSOON JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are mostly web-cruft. The Variety one might help, but name is only trivially mentioned in a long list of the cast. Keep !vote is couched in CRYSTAL. This is way TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had a starring role in The Mist (TV series). She also appeared in an episode of Chicago Med and a starring role in the independent film Darcy. What more is needed? There are plenty of actors that have pages on Wikipedia with less credentials.Donaldd23 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WAX has no part here. This is a BLP, so it can't stay unless RS is added. I'm glad to change my position if such can be found. Testimony is not enough. Agricola44 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't really find anything...guess you couldn't either. Agricola44 (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up on all the Wikipedia acronyms, can you translate for a lay person? What does "WAX has no part here" mean? I am assuming BLP is "Biography of a Living Person", but I also have not idea what "...unless RS is added." Thanks in advance for clarifying for me. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this piece explains WAX and "RS" means realiable sources. RS is the crux here. Because this is a living person, the sourcing requirements are very strict. Is there coverage in a mainstream news source (e.g. New York Times), in books from reputable publishers, or the like that discuss the subject specifically and in detail? That's the kind of thing that is needed here. I could not readily find anything like that. What is considered unreliable are web-cruft (Twitter/FaceBook/YouTube etc), IMDB, pamphlets, etc. Hope that's helpful...and I'm glad to change my position if you do find some reliable sources. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Would citing this article in the page meet the criteria you seek? http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/gus-birney/ Donaldd23 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding WP:ENT, "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", I just added that she was Marisa Tomei's daughter in a Williamstown Theater Festival production of The Rose Tattoo, and gets mentioned in the NYT review. Edwardx (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've mostly added a lot more web cruft. The NYT you refer to talks about Tomei. Birney is is mentioned incidentally, Rosa, played a little too shrilly by Ms. Birney, has recently met a young sailor at a school dance..., i.e. what we call a "trivial mention". Is there anything substantive (not web cruft) that talks about Birney specifically? Agricola44 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2017 (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. Alex Shih ^Talk 08:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longest-reigning emperors in China

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

There is already a "List of rulers of China" page. In the wiki to explore who is the longest is an original study, unless there are several academic studies. O1lI0 (talk) 05:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing worth saving here. Timmyshin (talk) 07:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails, WP:NOT, in particular, #3 of WP:NOTSTATS - "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics". Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CFORK. Not only is there a List of rulers of China, but there is also a List of longest-reigning monarchs, which includes some Chinese emperors. Therefore, I believe that this article is redundant. Name goes here (talk | contribs) 03:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete with the possibility of accepting a later more useful version of the article if one is proposed. As it is, what there is of this list is not useful, but it is possible that a useful list may be created. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark marketing

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

Original research with misused and poor references designed to publicise the view of a particular start-up company, BrandTotal, which claims to have trademarked "Dark Marketing" and uses it to push their marketing intelligence platform. It was quite wrongly accepted at AfC, especially since it contained this blatant advertising for BrandTotal. If further proof of the intent of this article is required, see here. The entire article is based on a very misleading, skewed and idiosyncratic definition of the term "dark marketing", which has multiple uses and meanings in scholarly literature. See the front page of BrandTotal.com and this post on their blog which are essentially repeated in Dark marketing and are now posing as a Wikipedia article. For more on these issues, see the discussions at Talk:Dark marketing. There's a good argument for completely blowing it up. Minimally, it should be returned to draft space. Voceditenore (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC). Expanded by Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I had also looked for scholarly sources and had concluded that this article does not accurately reflect use of the term "dark marketing" in that literature. I had suggested moving the article back to draft, given the obvious AfC failures here, but I am not convinced that the author has an interest in writing a non-promotional article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify, since the author has displayed an interest in writing a more neutral draft. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have carried out a thorough investigation of this article and have concluded that it misrepresents the body of literature (the blog literature) and completely ignores the scholarly literature on the subject. I have provided detailed, evidence-based arguments on the article's talk page. The article is an exercise in spin and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, with the potential to mislead users. BronHiggs (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be a likely COI/promotional creation, consisting mostly of original (and poorly done) research. A couple of other editors have been thorough in research attempting to see if it can be improved as is, but WP:TNT seems the best course of action. Melcous (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete. Please do NOT delete this article for the following reasons. While I am affiliated with BrandTotal, I chose to write this completely on my own without compensation because I believe it's important to have a wikipedia page on dark marketing to share and make known this ongoing phenomenon. Yes, "dark marketing" has other meanings which I included in the article and will continue to include, as this is still a work in progress. There was no previous page on dark marketing and I believe there needs to be one. All BrandTotal ties have been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the article because the intention was never to promote BrandTotal and, instead, is meant to be an informative piece about dark marketing (BrandTotal information was included originally just to provide factual information that "dark marketing" was indeed trademarked by BrandTotal). Additional references to the article were added/changed that support the writing, and others may continue to be added. I am happy to edit and adjust the article to more clearly demonstrate the other meanings an uses of the term "dark marketing" with scholarly literature. PLEASE put it in draft space and do not delete. I do not at all mean to mislead users, since the meaning of dark marketing that I convey is absolutely one of the meanings. Please consider my points above and understand that I have every intention to write about dark marketing solely for the benefit of the wikipedia and marketing community.Rooks12345 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per Cordless Larry. It's not ready for the mainspace as it appears to be a neologism of sorts but I think it's unfair to the page's author to delete something that has been accepted via AfC that could be notable, verifiable and neutral given enough time and effort. The AfC accept was probably erroneous (courtesy ping Sulfurboy). DrStrauss talk 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I am staying neutral as I was the editor who approved it out of AfC. I will state however, that I did not do as much research as some of the above editors into the scholarly level of accuracy in the article. Thus, consideration should be given to them. Thanks to everyone for their work on looking into this. With 1700ish articles in the AfC process waiting for review, it's hard to dig too deep below the surface in reviewing, so please understand that occasionally one may slip through the cracks. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfurboy, while I appreciate that the drafts backlog means that researching each and every topic in detail is not realistic, surely you shouldn't be passing drafts with this much unreferenced content? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not delete~~. Comment. I very much appreciate getting more time to adjust the article so that it demonstrates a more scholarly approach. It has great potential and absolutely does not intend to mislead readers, since the meaning conveyed is certainly a meaning of Dark Marketing. As mentioned previously, the sole intention is to help make the wikipedia and marketing community become more aware of this ongoing phenomenon.Rooks12345 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd !vote stricken. Rooks12345, please do not vote twice. Any further comments you make should be preceded by Comment (not Do not delete). Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply tacking on "other uses" to the current article is not sufficient. And, no, the meaning conveyed is not one of the accepted ones. The primary focus of the article is the completely proprietary "definition" and analysis used by BrandTotal in their marketing material. The Wikipedia article is simply paraphrasing that material. No other reliable source uses that definition and that analysis. Nor have any independent reliable sources written about BrandTotal's definition. Simply having removed the explicit advertising copy and all the links to BrandTotal's blog and website, does not change the situation. In fact, given that the whole analysis is paraphrased from BrandTotal's materials, the current state of the Wikipedia article is extra misleading since it does not explicitly state where it comes from. The advertising remains but becomes hidden. By closely echoing BrandTotal's marketing material, the Wikipedia article lends credibility to it whether the BrandTotal name is mentioned or not. It is, dare I say, a prime example of "dark marketing". If sent to draft space, the article will have to be completely rewritten from scratch, leaving out all the previous text. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising per above comment/analysis by Voceditenore. I can understand why it was accepted at AfC, (promotions shouldn't be for perfect articles, just those which the reviewer deems likely notable) but it doesn't stand up to deeper scrutiny. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify there's not a feasible mainspace article here at the present time. It's possible this could become one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 19:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The subject is notable, but the article isn't quite there yet. Since there aren't problems that are significant enough to warrant a delete in my opinion, but the article still shouldn't be in the mainspace right now, draftifying it is the best route to take. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 00:15, 9 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Pawar

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure promotion and/or spam.Barely evades G11.Zero independent notability.Delete and redirect to Sakal Media Group. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The person is not notable beyond his association with the Sakal media group. This should be redirected there. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as Godric on Leave says, it's almost a G11 call. It requires both a fundamental rewrite for promotionalism and needs to establish independent notability, neither of which, as far as I can see, would result in a valuable encyclopedia article. DrStrauss talk 12:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2017 (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) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic surveillance system

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

How does this pass GNG? Very few hits across journals et al.A redirect target may be sought after. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why this is even a separate article. Does not have any notability by itself. Adamgerber80 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten and expanded the article to include several paragraphs backed by 10 reliable sources, all secondary for the basic facts they support. DSS are an important part of public health monitoring in developing countries. The multiple RS in the article, including two books, show notability per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At presentthe article seems satisfactory; enough references to show notability. I'd be surprised otherwise .as I thought it was a well known concept. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new version (thanks MV) seems to be well defined and notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is only proposing a merge. I suggest adding merge templates to the articles denoted and starting a discussion on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andaz (hotel)

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

Don't believe qualifies for own page, is only notable because brought by Hyatt WP:ORGSIG. I think page should be merged into Hyatt. NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:27, 29 September 2017 (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 17:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City Football Field

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

It's a high school football field. The same editor also created an article for the high school gym and the high school football team, which were both deleted by prod. This was PROD'd too, but the PROD was reverted by the article's creator. No claim is made to notability; there are no references on the page, and unless the Detroit Lions held supersecret practices there that were not widely covered, there is no reason to think that notability could be found. John from Idegon (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- And since Wikipedia requires verifiability, supersecret practices would not add towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Be True to Your School, but come on. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing sources necessary for supporting notability. High school football fields can be notable, I just see no reason that this one is. Would change my position if such information were provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete high school football fields are almost never indepedently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing to indicate notability found. Verifiable info on field could be put into Garden City High School, but I would not recommend merge, most of this is unreferenced cruft. ClubOranje^T 11:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the "Be True to Your School, but come on" principle cited by Clarityfiend. Cbl62 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Children's Playground

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead Children's Playground

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

Largely unreliable sources. Unreferenced statements of paranormal nonsense. Limited notability. This should be deleted. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE topic. Most of this article was written before the only reliable source cited ([36]) was published, and that source may have been derived from this Wikipedia article (see Talk:Dead Children's Playground#Possible plagiarism). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's definitely a circular reference situation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 20:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The prose is credulous and the references are very bad for a variety of reasons. The "best" reference appears to be a later paraphrase of this crappy article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2017 (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 16 Martyrs of Japan#Martyred Laity. Consensus was to either delete or Merge/redirect. Will merge any info into target article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marina de Omura

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

Random woman who lived in Japan and was burned alive for being a Catholic. The sum total of what is in the article (both this and the Italian) is what's online (i.e. there ain't more to say), and quite frankly they're not all stellar sources. Primefac (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it appears she was canonized, not beatified, by John Paul II in 1987, according to this book. I would expect Catholic saints to usually be notable, but there simply is too little reliably sourced information about her except "brief hagiographic accounts" (compare p. 419 in the same book). My understanding is that Marina was one of the "companions" of Lorenzo Ruiz, was killed along with him and canonized along with him. All this is very hazy, though; Catholic Online only lists her as blessed, not canonized. Huon (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 16 Martyrs of Japan. The little bit of information in the instant article can easily fit in the target article. By the way, all sixteen in the group were canonized at the same time (October 1987), as announced by the Vatican here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

from the it wikipedia: Marina di Omura was beatified with 15 other Dominican martyrs including Lorenzo Ruiz , Pope John Paul II on 18 February 1981 in Manila, Philippines . It was later canonized in Rome on October 18, 1987 still by John Paul II. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I went ahead and merged a basic description of the subject into the target article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Not enough content for a standalone article. A den jentyl ettien avel dysklyver 07:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 05:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 16 Martyrs of Japan. Companions/minor figures from the list of national martyrs don't always get their own article, especially if they are from countries where English-language sourcing would not be ideal compared to a joint article. If/when we get more sources on the individual martyrs in this case, the redirect can be converted into an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, there do appear to be enough non-English sources where an article could be justified if we had someone to translate: [37]. If someone wants to take a crack at it before the AfD is up, ping me. Otherwise, the best thing for the reader is to redirect to the main article for the grouping. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- This sounds a good solution. I expect the information on any one of a group of martyrs is too limited to merit a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks to me as if this article could be considerably expanded in line with the articles and sources in the French, Italian and Polish versions.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 16_Martyrs_of_Japan#Martyred_Laity where the subject is mentioned. Not enough material even for a stub at this time. If anyone wants to research the subject and source it at a later point, then great. For now, the redict works better as it provides the necessary context. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2017 (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 17:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–the Gambia relations

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

Six references must mean it's notable, right? Upon examination, no. On the occasion of the Gambia's non-resident ambassador presenting his credentials in 2012, the Bangladesh president's office and foreign ministry issued press releases. The state-owned news agency (BSS) and various national newspapers dutifully regurgitated the story. That accounts for five of the sources - reliable, but counted as one source per footnote #3 of WP:SIGCOV, and not independent of the government.

The remaining source covers the sole element of relations that is not routine, a 2014 business delegation from the Gambia, led by their Minister of Trade, Industry, Regional Integration and Employment. Searches of the usual types found two other sources that cover the same event.[38][39] (The whole visit is less improbable when you realize that the minister and ambassador were in India the week before doing substantive deals.) The Atlas of Economic Complexity shows no 2015 bilateral trade. It shows 2014 bilateral exports from Bangladesh at $12,900 (0.00004% of total).[40] One has to go back to 2011 to find bilateral exports from the Gambia, at $5,806 (0.003% of total).[41]

Relations are the same as Bangladesh has with most countries: no resident ambassadors, no state visits, no bilateral agreements, and negligible economic ties. One non-routine event in 40 years (an event which, moreover, has yet to bear any tangible fruit) does not a notable bilateral relationship make. The topic can be and is covered in Foreign relations of Bangladesh and Foreign relations of the Gambia, where such minor relations should be covered rather than in a puffed up stand-alone article. Fails WP:GNG Worldbruce (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Compelling argument for deletion, and my own research corroborates what Worldbruce has found. The five sources all were published within a few days of each other, and all contained significant common language, which would indicate that they all originally came from the same source. It would appear that the trade delegation in 2014 likely cost more than the entirety of combined bilateral exports generated by the trip. I could not find any notability policy specifically on inter-country relations (just individual politicians and diplomats), but I would not think that they would be inherently notable (otherwise we would have 43,472 articles on bilateral diplomacy running around). CThomas³ (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete excellent analysis by Worldbruce. a spike of coverage in 2014 but neither country can bother having a state visit or a bilateral agreement in 40 years of relations. this is part of an ongoing spree of Bangladesh minor relations articles. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm convinced by the nominator's argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2017 (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) 03:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green parking lot

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

This really belongs in the main parking lot article, at least at each's current size. Merger or deletion would both be workable. Anmccaff (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Parking lot.~~ Source searches in GBooks, GScholar and Gnews are providing some coverage, but there may not be enough available to qualify a standalone article. The merge target article has no mention, so merging would improve it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (struck my !vote above) – Available sources demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "Green+parking+lot" Google Books search shows a lot of coverage of this topic in many books, and I believe that it is a discrete topic sufficiently different from the broad topic of "parking lot" that it deserves its own article, instead of being buried deep in another article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merge to Parking lot. I only found one book specifically mentioning "Green parking lot" when doing the same google books search as Cullen328. Based on that and other book searches I agree with Northamerica1000 that there isn't enough there to have a stand-alone article. While other green technologies or adaptations of previous articles have been accepted like Green vehicle, Green building and Natural building, I believe it's simply WP:TOOSOON for this one. As the parking lot article does have a section on alternative paving materials I don't see why this section couldn't simply be expanded to list alternatives to pavement altogether or have additional section added mentioning ways in which some places are trying to make parking lots more "green". In the future if a new article is warranted a split can occur. In addition, I noted that the source cited for the Environmental Protection Agency refers to "Green parking lot" in the title, however even the table of contents lists the word "green" is in quotes before "parking lot". - Vanstrat (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon looking again my searches were mistyped and Cullen328 was correct, there is more coverage than I initially found (not only in Google books but news searches in library databases came up with quite a bit). The article just needs work and links can be added from Parking lot. While I thought that the results would tend to show "a parking lot that is the colour green" as being the most recognised for the phrase "Green parking lot", that was not the case. - Vanstrat (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and what sort of coverage did you see that suggested this should be separated from "Parking lot?" Anmccaff (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same google books search that I believe Cullen328 did, and I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail. One of the library news searches can be seen here. I think there are enough sources and enough detail in them. - Vanstrat (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also more than enough sources for "concrete parking lot", "Gravel parking lot", "asphalt parking lot", "temporary parking lot", "soil-cement parking lot,' &cet, &cet, ad. naus. Why should this be a separate article any more than those? Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all routine and predictable variations of standard parking lots, Anmccaff. A parking lot that, for example, generates solar power, is a sufficiently discrete topic to support its own article.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single technique mentioned in the Wiki article is, in fact, a routine and predictable variations of standard techniques, most of which have been used, often for environmental reasons -although perhaps not by that name - for over a century. Again, what justifies a separate article, especially considering what this one looked like until recently? Anmccaff (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same reason Brick building isn't a wikipedia article but Green building is. It's not always about the number of sources, it's about the content. As I said above: "I looked through several of the entries to see the level of detail". And as WP:N states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". You can see the difference between the books that come back on a book search for "Gravel parking lot" and "Green parking lot". (And it's not about the current article. It needs work.) - Vanstrat (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet, Frame building? The essential difference I see is that "green parking lots" are not a oddity, as "green building" still is, and all of the information relevant to "Green parking lots" should be...and indeed is in the main article, even if it could use some expansion there. This is just a POV fork, and, over most of its life, a coatrack. Anmccaff (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet Green roof is also an article, an arguably good one at that. Blue roof even has it's own. With work this article can get better based on the sources available, and WP:N isn't a question anymore in my mind from what's out there. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and when it does become a good article, we will have two nearly identical articles, covering almost exactly the same subjects; i.e., at least a WP:REDUNDANTFORK and likely a WP:POV Fork. This is good how, exactly? Anmccaff (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definitions given for those forks I don't see how they apply to this distinct subject. - Vanstrat (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2017 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Rule (card game)

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

Appears to be a hoax, as other users have already noted. None of the three cited sources in the article now mention this purported "rule" at all, much less back up the claims they are cited to support. Even if it is not a hoax, this article clearly fails WP:GNG and other relevant notability guidelines (especially WP:Verifiability). Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completed a good faith Google search and could not find anything reliable and nothing that did not appear to be derived from this article. I am 99% sure that this is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. I'm amazed that the article survived for over four years without being picked up - so my congratulations to Everymorning for finding this and getting it rightfully deleted.

Any passing admins: is this worthy for the hoax museum when the article is deleted? GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 08:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is to quickly keeping all for now; individual stations may be redirected by discretion Alex Shih ^Talk 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gōtsu Honmachi Station

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

This is an omnibus deletion. The following articles are also being listed for deletion:

All of the above are stations on the soon-to-be-closed Sankō Line, connecting the towns of Miyoshi and Gotsu. Whereas the termini stations are notable owing to their connections and affiliated sources, the stations inbetween are not. Most consist of a simple infobox, an image and a rather tautological sentence detailing nothing more than where in Japan it is. Most of these have not been kept up to date (except by the housekeeping bots), and none of them reference the line's impending closure.

TL:DR - None of these articles meet WP:GNGs. GR _{(Contact me) (See my edits)} 00:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all unique names can't they just be redirected to Sanko Line? ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sankō Line. Just being out of date is not in itself a viable reason for deletion, and it would be more beneficial to tag such articles with the {{update}} template instead. If any of the articles in the list do actually fail the WP:GNG criteria, they should be redirected to the parent Sankō Line article, as they will continue to be feasible search terms. --DAJF (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all railway stations, open or closed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, we don't generally delete articles of notable places that have closed. We generally consider railway stations to be notable whether or not they are still currently in use. In any case the railway line isn't due to close till next year, so why the unholy rush?! Sionk (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - notability is not temporary. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: pardon the pun, but this AfD is probably a trainwreck. Some of the stations meet both general notability guidelines and building notability guidelines. While the GNG does supersede specific notability guidelines (except academics for some reason), the AfD precedent is that train stations are generally notable. None of the articles are poorly sourced and all seem to warrant their own article. DrStrauss talk 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Yes, every single one of them is notable. Although usage of rural railways in Japan is declining, it was previously used by many passengers for decades. The stations served as an important part in the life of the local community. Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia and a repository of historical knowledge should keep these information for posterity. The railway line itself seems to be very notable based on the amount of coverage I can find. Based on this, I can assume the stations would have coverage, perhaps in Japanese. Please do not delete this.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2017 (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 Samworth Brothers. Also, not sure what a "non-notable source" is supposed to be; sources are the things that can establish notability of another topic, the notability of a source itself is a wholly different topic and none of these things implies the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Foods

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

Seems to only reference non-notable sources (as good as Pig World magazine is) or simply has passing mentions. WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 00:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samworth Brothers. No indications that Tamar Foods is independently notable, fails WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Samworth Brothers. But keep Ginsters separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside Since when was The Grocer a " non-notable source"? (reliable source?) This is the premier trade journal of the food trade. Just where else is a better source for food industry coverage? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2017 (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 Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album)#Tour as a compromise between keeping and deleting. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LA to the Moon Tour

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

PROD removed without explanation. Not a notable tour (per NTOUR), which is understandable since it hasn't happened yet. The coverage is purely standard, consisting of little more than "She's going on tour" followed by a list of dates. Needless to say, the article doesn't pass the GNG either. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an argument? One that addresses NTOUR? Drmies (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lust for Life (Lana Del Rey album)#Tour for now. To warrant a standalone article, WP:NTOUR encourages coverage relating to "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience". Such coverage will likely exist in a couple months once the tour begins, but in the meantime, existing sources merely establish that a tour is going to happen, which the guideline says is "not sufficient to demonstrate notability." gongshow talk 08:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTOUR with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Akhiljaxxn, please show us just one single in-depth discussion of the tour. The best source is this announcement--maybe a half a dozen sentences, none of them discussing the tour in any substantive manner. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2017 (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.

^ "帝吧出征FB：直播平台被封禁多个网站关评论". Tencent News (in Chinese (China)). 同时观看人数迅速超过10万

[1] "帝吧出征FB：直播平台被封禁多个网站关评论". Tencent News (in Chinese (China)). 同时观看人数迅速超过10万

[1]