Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 October	16 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Agustino Educational Services

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

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 09:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 15:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 11:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To include in next week's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lunch Actually

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

Christina Thung, the author of the current version has requested a face-to-face meeting with me about this so I thought I would let her see a few more people's opinions. It does seem to have a number of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CSD criteria that it was deleted under applies because the article would need to be entirely rewritten to be an appropriate article. As written, it is a puff piece likely written by someone who will benefit financially from the increased exposure provided by Wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece, notability not established besides general commentary on company. Previous speedy delete criteria still applied. Also, Christina Thung, based on username, likely to be directly employed by Lunch Actually. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still strikes me as A7/G11 material, just as it did in 2016. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ghushmeshwar, Rajasthan

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

Not a jyotirlinga, actually the 12th jyotirlinga is Grishneshwar, which is in Daulatabad, Maharashtra (1, 2). This is clearly a promotional article created by temple staff to promote the temple and lure the people. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability, clearly an imposter of Grishneshwar [1]. Based on the coverage [2] [3] in the regional newspapers, this temple only merits a mention in Sawai Madhopur district. --DBig Xrayᗙ 16:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 22:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, this temple is not a Jyotirlinga.-- Godric ki Kothri^{talk to me} 12:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Tongzhi Restoration. Edit history will remain; whether and what to merge is at editor decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Empire reform movement

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

Very much essay style, requiring a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopaedic. There are aspects of POVFORK as all elements of this article already exist in New Policies, Hundred Days' Reform and Self-Strengthening Movement. It is not clear if the three reforms presented actually constitute an ongoing reform movement over 50 years or are isolated reform attempts. Making the matter more complex, there is also Draft:Chinese Empire reform movement to consider which seems to have been initiated spanning around 2,000 years beginning 350BC. A search for in public sources does not seem to point to any specific "Chinese Empire reform movement" as common name for a reform or series of reform over a specific time frame. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The time period from the Opium War to the fall of the Qing Dynasty is a much-discussed topic in academic studies. The failure of the attempted reforms to stop the fall is also much discussed often as the "Qing Restoration" or Tongzhi Restoration. See The Fall of the Qing, 1840-1912 for an Oxford bibliography. This time period is also covered at a general level in Qing_dynasty#Self-strengthening_and_the_frustration_of_reforms and the following section. The nominated article at an initial glance appears to be well-referenced (though it does need editing for grammar and NPOV) and might be merged to Tongzhi Restoration or it might serve as a WP:SPINOUT for the reform section of the Qing Dynasty article. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article says that [c]ollectively the period of reforms has been referred to as the Qing Restoration or Tongzhi Restoration. "Qinq Restoration" is bolded but does not redirect anywhere and Tongzhi Restoration already has an article. Doesn't that make this a POV fork? If there is no satisfactory answer to that question then my recommendation is redirect. SpinningSpark 22:14, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the alternative name of Qing Restoration in case people felt renaming was appropriate and linked Tongzhi Restoration if merge was the consensus result. I don't see it as a POV fork of the latter, more as additional material that could be merged. I also did some grammar editing but didn't touch the content much. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert on Chinese history - an interested individual at best. From what I read above and how the article has now been changed, it seems the title "Chinese Empire reform movement" does not really stand. So it seems the proposal is to call is Qing Restoration or Tongzhi Restoration. The latter already has an article. As a phrase "Qing Restoration" is not clear cut either as I see it from a brief review of some materials. this source puts it into the 1860's which would make is synonymous for the Self-Strengthening movement. This source puts the Qing Restoration to after the republican revolution, i.e. literally restoring the lost empire. Another source puts it into a similar context, as a movement lasting 12 days.

This aside, one might argue there could be an umbrella article about the various reform movements, however, I think that Qing dynasty and specifically the sections Qing dynasty#Self-strengthening and the frustration of reforms as well as Qing dynasty#Reform, revolution, collapse already do this and at the same time provide a lot more historical context and colour.

The existing articles about the three reforms also appear to give a lot more of a nuanced view and explore differing analysis of the events much better, especially on the Hundred Days' Reform and the Self-Strengthening Movement.

There may be cases where a WP:SPLIT can be useful, however I feel this one is a duplication of existing material that simplifies and omits, therefore has hallmarks of a POVFORK. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tongzhi Restoration Agree with assertion this appears to be an essay-style content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above comment. Deb (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article is providing an overview of a subject where New Policies (whose name needs changing), Hundred Days' Reform (which should be pruned, perhaps merging content here) and Self-Strengthening Movement can be "main" articles. Some of the other items in this article could do with a main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Qing Restoration or merge to the currently lightly-referenced Tongzhi Restoration. Some of my reasoning is up page in comments but the gist is that an umbrella article for the late Qing reforms would serve a valuable explainer role in the encyclopedia. Whether we use John King Fairbank's terminology of "Qing Restoration" or go with the Chinese convention of naming the period for the Tongzhi Emperor is a little unclear to me given that the latter term is sometimes used to refer only to the specific reforms in his reign and might be seen as excluding the related one's such as those during the Guangxu Emperor's reign. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:COMMONNAME I'd be much more comfortable with Tongzhi Restoration than Qing Restoration. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Simonm223. Though I don't see a redirect. The title is far too broad. The Chinese empire has been around for thousands of years and effectively every emperor has done a "reform movement" - usually by purging the previous one and rewriting history. Whatever is appropriate should me merged into Tongzhi Restoration. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tongzhi Restoration: roughly the same topic. However, if the scope is going to include the Hundred Days' reform (which is after the Tongzhi reign), then Qing restoration may be a better title. -Zanhe (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Technically passes NFOOTY, but consensus is that this is insufficient when the player clearly fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glauver Aranha Pinheiro

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

Footballer who seemingly fails both WP:NFOOTY and GNG. BlameRuiner (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 15:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~/Delete - Looks like the player featured once for NK Inter Zaprešić in the 2007–08 Croatian First Football League, a league listed over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Footbal Database backs that up. Delete is right given past consensus - which was helpfully brought to my attention by Jogurney below. Hopefully things can be a little more clearer in the future. R96Skinner (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may have played a Prva Liga match, but it's barely verifiable: [4]. His 20 minutes at Poljud may pass WP:FOOTY, but I believe this is otherwise a directory entry which completely fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk
Delete - article about a semi-pro footballer who may have played one match in a fully-pro league. I can barely find any coverage of this footballer outside of routine match reports from his play in semi-pro leagues. Not enough here to satisfy NFOOTBALL or GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I respect what the above editors have said, certainly see where they are coming from, but I feel the current system needs a larger discussion somewhere else rather than on a specific AfD. I understand the whole argument of NFOOTY being secondary to GNG and that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is an essay - completely correct. However, that doesn't stop the fact that articles are being judged firmly on NFOOTY during AfDs currently. This brings inconsistency, which isn't good. For example, if this AfD ends in delete it won't change anything on the wider scale; very similar articles will still come and go, with some being deleted and some being kept. I don't feel like this should be the case, consistency should be key surely? R96Skinner (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a well-established consensus that an article on a footballer who has only played a handful of minutes in a fully-pro league (as Pinheiro may have), doesn't meet the spirit of NFOOTBALL. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawyer Gaffney - which contains links to several earlier AfDs reaching the same conclusion. Jogurney (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that AfD - appreciate you linking that. Still feel the way things currently are leads itself to inconsistency, a full set of definitive guidelines would be preferred other past consensus that (please correct me if I'm wrong) isn't listed anywhere clear so, evidently, gets lost as time goes by. At the moment, to any new editor, it just looks like NFOOTY is enough - which isn't helpful. Probably is a semi-unusual situation as most articles in question would have played multiple matches or none at all, but it still would be nice to have an easy to find guideline that gives a definitive answer - not: may/may not, is/isn't unless etc. R96Skinner (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it would be helpful to have a listing of Football-related AfD consensus decisions like this somewhere - possibly linked at WP:NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That would a good idea. I'll ask others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football when I have time, nice to have other voices involved. Consistency and clarity can only be a positive thing. R96Skinner (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As someone who had a backlog of footballer article to be reviewed by the creator (myself). I would say it is wrong to consider professional debut as an on/off switch for WP:notability. Some footballer did not pass WP:NFOOTBALL but still have routine coverage on transfer to another club. If those article did not existed, then it clearly fails WP:GNG. I don't comment on how many article and how "in-depth" to qualify WP:GNG, but in Glauver Aranha Pinheiro's case, currently the wiki article did not have any article including news article about his transfer, or around anything about him. Matthew_hk t c 16:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see the logic in keeping this over NFooty, it shouldn't supersede GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhtar's return

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

Non-notable Russian TV serial. --RTY9099 (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a TV series that ran for 11 years on Russian national television. Unless the nominator can come up with a meaningful rationale for deletion, I think we should close this now. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, 11 years, so what? Links, reviews, awards?--RTY9099 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Russian article, it is still running. You think a popular TV series that has been running since 2004 is not notable? Why? Where did you look for 'links' and what did you find? There's plenty in Russian news sources. --Michig (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an eleven year running nationally broadcast television series is almost certainly notable as per WP:TVSERIES, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete instead. Nomination withdrawn to mitigate discontent. (non-admin closure) Cnbrb (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CategoryDefunct banks of Scotland

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

Created in error - typographical mistake, was meant to be a category. Apologies. Cnbrb (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should not have an AFD. AFD is for when community discussion is required. Just a simply speedy-deletion request is all that is needed, i.e. you should have just used template:delete on the article, i.e. just put {{db}} there. In fact during the four minutes from mistaken creation to when AFD was opened, a speedy-deletion request was put in by somebody else. --Doncram (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the speedy delete button but it had a list of reasons that didn't match. Don't blame me, blame the Twinkle interface. Now, please just be helpful instead and delete the article. Thank you. Cnbrb (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use Twinkle then. Your request is to have a full community discussion by AFD. Could you please withdraw your request. If there are not opposing votes, a deletion nominator is allowed to close an AFD by withdrawing it. Please read up about how to do so, probably at wp:AFD if necessary. You are wasting other people's time, not me. And by the way i am not an admin so I cannot complete the speedy deletion request. --Doncram (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the article creation was very obviously a typographical error and I clearly attempted to make a good faith fix. I could with less of your rudeness and nit-picking about procedure. Nobody asked you to comment here, so if you've got nothing constructive to contribute here then I suggest you move on and do something else. Cnbrb (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there's going to be an AFD, i vote "delete" as requested, it is not an encyclopedic topic. --Doncram (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Several requests for relisting asked for more specifics on what references provide notability outside a single event. Specific references demonstrating this were not provided, supporting the argument that this individual is indeed notable for only a single event. If anyone feels that the event itself is notable and would like this userfied to help in creating an article on it, let me know and I'll be happy to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean A. Stevens

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

Qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, as the subject has only received significant coverage for being the first female to say a prayer at the end of an LDS general conference. Other aspects of the subject in independent, reliable sources are limited to passing mentions and name checks. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. Thing is, she's not known "only in the context of a single event," she's not a "a low-profile individual," and her role in the prayer event Nom menitons was both "significant" and "substantial." This is not WP:BLP1E. She held a significant office within the LDS hierarchy before that prayer, and went on (together with her husband, Mormons head missions two by two,) to head the LDS mission in London, these activities are covered in WP:RSes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Can you provide any independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage outside of the subject saying the prayer? I looked, and didn't find any. This is important, because subjects are not given a free pass for an article based upon their position in a religious organization; notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, which does not appear to be available for this subject outside of the prayer coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sources 7,8, 11, 12 and 13 cover her present post, at LDS London. Deseret is semi-independent of the Church, but the Salt Lake Tribune is independent. This search [5] shows that her activities continue to attract some notice, albeit only a little. Let's see what other editors find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Below is my analysis of those sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

#7 was published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church. This is a primary source, and does not serve to establish notability.
#8 provides two sentences about the subject, and reads like it is directly from a press release. In my view, this is not significant coverage.
#11 is about the prayer, and furthermore, only has one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.
#12 has some coverage, but most of it is interview content, making it primary in nature.
#13 has one lone passing mention. This is not significant coverage.

Unsurprisingly, other independent newspapers in regions with large Mormon populations , like Gannett-owned The Spectrum (Utah), and the Idaho State Journal covered her activities as one of the leaders of the Primary in the years before the prayer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is widespread and significant coverage of her in multiple indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Said coverage, however, is all about the subject stating a prayer. This remains a WP:BLP1E situation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, umm........you of all people find her sufficiently notable? ∯WBG^converse 05:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing enough sources to pass GNG, even though some are trivial and it is a borderline case of notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki: Are the sources you mention all about the WP:BLP1E matter of saying a prayer, or has the subject received significant coverage about other matters? I haven't seen any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the latter yet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with Northamerica1000's analysis of the (lack of) significance of the sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful if the people arguing to keep would be more specific about which sources they are putting forth, and how they meet policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because there is no separate article about the event. And even if there was, the appropriate action would be merger not deletion. The subject is notable for her milestone achievement which is highlighted in additional sources such as Mormon Feminism: Essential Writings. It's amazing that, after the recent fuss about Donna Strickland we still have attempts to delete content about pioneering women. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Andrew mentioned this ongoing AFD of an article on "a pioneering women" on the WIR talkpage here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has only received significant coverage for one matter, saying a prayer, that's it. WP:BLP1E applies entirely, regardless of the gender of the subject, which has no bearing on notability whatsoever. Notice the source review above regarding coverage the subject has received for other matters; this is not significant coverage at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came here solely because I noticed Andrew's somewhat canvassy message on WIR and felt I should post a notification about that message here, but now looking at the content of Andrew's !vote I gotta say I agree with NA1000: standard operating procedure when we don't have an article on the sole event for which BLP1Es are notable is to either delete the biographical article and maybe create an article on the event in its place, or to retitle and rewrite the article into a completely different article, which is de facto deletion. Furthermore, if the idea is that BLP1E doesn't apply because we don't have an article on the event and so this page shouldn't be deleted or redirected but rather retitled and refocused, then WIR is irrelevant because the goal of not having a standalone article on this woman's biography is the same. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She was one of the three top leaders of an international organization with millions of members. She is not notable just for one event contrary to the claims of some here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it does not appear that the subject has received any significant coverage for said leadership roles. All the significant coverage is for one event, saying one prayer. Religious leaders do not get a free pass for a Wikipedia article, in part because no guideline or policy exists that provides presumed notability for said subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Andrew D., but you seem to be on a quest to rectify some kind of injustice here rather than focusing on the work involved in deciding whethere to keep or delete the article. (You even dismiss the work itself. In your own words, "Wikipedia editors should be editing and anything which takes them away from this activity is counter-productive"! Really?! I beg to differ, and quite strongly too.) As you probably are well aware, Wikipedia is not the place to engage in advocacy or political activism. So, if you feel that more Wikipedia articles about women should be created and for that purpose we should ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you need to take it up to the appropriate forums. This is not the place for that battle, if you think we need one. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome has got it backwards as I didn't make this nomination. It's Northamerica1000 who seems to be on a mission of some sort because it appears that they have nominated numerous articles about Mormons for deletion recently. I don't know what that's all about but I'm just responding as a deletion patroller, reviewing the topic by reference to the facts of the matter and our policies. I have some familiarity with this sort of topic because I have, for example, started an article about another female spiritual pioneer -- Sarah Crosby -- and consider both topics to be reasonable content. NA1000 seems hung up on the idea that leading a congregation in prayer is of no significance and we should delete on these grounds. I don't agree with that opinion as it seems not to be neutral. And I definitely don't agree that WP:BLP1E is a reason to delete as the three conditions are not met. As WP:BLP1E is not a reason to delete, the other policies, such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE, clearly indicate that we should not delete this. Amen. Andrew D. (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you, Andrew D., to your own commentary here, wherefrom your words were lifted verbatim. As to editors proposing for deletion a bunch of related articles within a short period of time, they're not necessarily on a "mission" (biased noms, agendas, fixation, etc). It might be so but more often than not it's not. Diligent editors who identify a flaw with an article on subject XYZ would search for other, similarly flawed, XYZ-related articles. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per NA1000.∯WBG^converse 05:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem to be plenty of sources out there to use in order to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I guess that you do not need to be pointed out that you need to provide specific sources? ∯WBG^converse 18:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333: Also, your !vote does not address the WP:BLP1E matter at all, which is the entire basis of the nomination. The only significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that appears to exist is about the subject saying one prayer at one event. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This appears to be a textbook case for BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The lede says it all, she's famous for one prayer at an event. Nothing else comes close to notability. Ifnord (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Primary (LDS Church)#Chronology of the general presidency of the Primary, the office she holds and one of the only articles to mention her name. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject distinctly lacks verifiable notability and is (little) known for saying a prayer. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more re-list as this is a BLP. A number of Keep !votes are pointing out that "there are sources", some more meat on the bones would possibly be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Well, three of the keep !votes above do not address the very core basis of the nomination, that this is a WP:BLP1E situation whereby the subject is notable only for one event. One keep !vote states one's own made-up rules regarding BLP1E, erroneously stating that WP:BLP1E is somehow not applicable unless an event article already exists. Additionally, this nomination is not based upon WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, but the three mentioned !votes above are addressing the nomination as though it is (e.g. "there are sources"). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E states cleary that three conditions must be satisfied for it to be applicable. These conditions are not satisfied because the subject was not a low profile person; she was a prominent person in the church. Her role in the event was substantial and we don't have a separate article for it to merge to. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E, we should retain this article to record both the event and its primary instigator, just like we record other pioneering women. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, where a low profile individual is defined in part as a subject who "Has appeared as a featured performer or speaker for a limited group, such as a professional or religious organization. The LDS Church is a religious organization. Clearly a low profile subject per Wikipedia's standards. WP:BLP1E continues to be clearly applicable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with NA and stand by my Delete. This is a textbook example of BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that it's a matter of perspective, but I agree with Andrew Davidson,. to me, she looks like a person who is notable by our standards because she was prominent as a leader of an important, mass membership organization. Her activities have been covered in the press over many years, and she also had a moment of national attention that continues to be revisited in books such as American Universities and the Birth of Modern Mormonism, 1867–1940, University of North Carolina Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Perhaps you don't get it regarding WP:BLP1E, but the book source you linked above (here) simply provides a one-sentence passing mention about the subject saying the prayer at the event, the basis of this nomination. This is the only matter that the subject has received significant coverage about, nothing else, and that book source doesn't even provide that, just a passing mention. Your link actually furthers the stance that it's a WP:BLP1E matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that her prayer is mentioned in a number of books, scholarly, and journalistic sources years after the event establishes her as a person about whom others will become curious enough to look up in Wikipedia. Moreover, your repeated assertions that the only aspect of her career and life that have garnered SIGCOV is this prayer is inaccurate, showing a misunderstanding of what significant coverage is. Such coverage can, under our policies, be comprised of the cumulative total of coverage that is significant but brief in multiple WP:RS over many years, as is the case with this fairly well-sourced article. Also, WP:BLUDGEONING an AfD discussion is disparaged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source analysis of the refs you provided above in the discussion. Primary sources and passing mentions do not create notability outside of the one event, in my opinion. Furthermore, well-reasoned, calm debate is never "bludgeoning" the process. Thanks for your reply regarding my query, and we will have to agree to disagree. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Stevens does not qualify as WP:BLP1E. To do so, she would have to meet "each of three conditions":

1.) "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Patently untrue since WP:RS covered her before and after the event in other contexts.

2.) " remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" - she became a public figure whose activities were covered in the press in 2010 when she became what National Public Radio described (in an article about the 2013 prayer,) as "a high-ranking leader in Primary, an educational arm facilitating religious instruction for children. Coverage of her pre-prayer activities in WP:RS is on the page.

3.) "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." obviously does not describe this case.

I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is not a BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing you cite the prerequisites for WP:BLP1E qualification, E.M.Gregory, because we can now pick 'em apart one by one.

(1) The sources covering her before that one event do not amount to the subject being notable, sorry. Remember that the person should be "worthy of notice" or "of note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. Almost all mentions in sources spring from the event. (2) The subject remains a low-profile individual. E.M.Gregory should have clarified that the NPR article contains indeed the phrase quoted ("E.M.Gregory") but that is the only mention the person gets in the article. It is an article devoted to the event (and its ostensible significance for Mormons) but not at all to the subject person. As to (3), the event itself is of significance strictly within the confines of the subject's Church. Not many outside sources seem to have taken notice. So, I echo your call to action:

I urge editors to look at the sources on the page. Stevens is strictly a BLP1E. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this woman is notable on her own. Perhaps a new article, Church of the Latter Day Saints General Conference Prayer 2013? There seems to be some interest in this topic. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Oct. 17 comment by USER:Andrew D. (above) should probably be taken into account by closing editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the tone of several comments shows the extent to which Christianity has become one of the more highly fraught topics on WP. I see this both in the dismissive tone taken by some editors towards the significance of church-related activities and organizations, and on pages supported by sectarian enthusiasts, who take umbrage when the notability of a beloved individual or institution is questioned. We need to tone it down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to say it, because I am very convinced Stevens is notable, but I have to say the role of her giving the prayer is over stated. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people do not "lead a congregation in prayer" they "give a prayer". Either way giving a prayer heard by tens if not hundreds of thousands is a big deal,although since the prayers are not published in the conference report, it is actually not as big as giving a talk (which Stevens also did in general conference). Another point to keep in mind is that people do not give prayers in general conference at their own initiative, they are asked to give them. Still, just because someone does not fully initiate an action does not mean that they are not notable for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does help explain why an apparently important "first" for women in the LDS church (according to non-LDS sources) does not seem to rate a mention in the General Conference (LDS Church) article. The Mormonism and women article does mention the 2013 event, but without discussing Stevens or citing a source. Bakazaka (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion made by Gnome that "Almost all mentions in sources spring from the event." is untrue. There is SIGCOV of her leadership , especially of her role in the Primary (LDS Church) now on the page, albeit, WP:HEY the article grew as this discussion went on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primary (LDS_Church)#Chronology of the general presidency of the Primary. The article has taken a direct hit from a WP:REFBOMB but the significant coverage is still around the single event. It's obviously possible to turn passing mentions and (repeated) quotes into an article, but that doesn't transubstantiate the original material into significant coverage. Redirection is a reasonable alternative to deletion, and Redditaddict69 had a good suggestion for a redirect target, which is unfortunately hard to find in the discussion above, so I repeat it here for emphasis: Primary (LDS_Church)#Chronology of the general presidency of the Primary, which already has information on the subject. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Bakazaka:. I almost always vote redirect if possible if I believe deletion is a solution and many users seem to back that (see this discussion). I was surprised nobody else had until now. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below is a source analysis of references in the article as of this post (link). In some instances, a url is not present in the article, such as for the book sources, but I have added links to the sources below in the table, so others can assess the depth of coverage. I cannot access one ProQuest source: Google searches for it is providing nothing, and the title of the article suggests that it consists of routine, run of the mill coverage. I have researched this quite a bit, and notions above in the discussion that the subject has received significant coverage for other matters is just not substantiated in actual available sources at all. I still view this as a textbook case of WP:BLP1E, which qualifies the article for deletion. Just read the sources listed below; the proof is in the pudding. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Analysis
"Sister Jean A. Stevens". LDS.org. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.	Primary source – not usable to establish notability
"First prayer by woman offered at Mormon conference", The Salt Lake Tribune, 2013-04-06.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event
David Kelly, "In rare event, woman leads prayer at major Mormon conference", Los Angeles Times, 2013-04-06.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Doug Barry, "Woman Leads Mormons in Prayer for the First Time in Forever", Jezebel, 2013-04-06.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Francis, Janae (4 April 2010). "LDS Church leaders focus on families". Standard-Examiner.	? Cannot access ProQuest, could not find the article in searches. The title suggests that this may simply be routine coverage.
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "Families in peril, LDS leaders warn". Salt Lake Tribune.	Passing mention, subject is only mentioned in the image caption, and nowhere else in the article: Not WP:SIGCOV
"Parents Lessons Prepared Sister Jean Stevens", Church News, August 7, 2010.	Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "New Primary presidency chosen for LDS children". Salt Lake Tribune.	Consists of a single quotation from the subject, making it primary and not WP:SIGCOV
Walch, Ted (27 March 2015). "Preparing to split up, LDS General Primary Presidency looks back on 5 years of service together". Deseret News.	Provides some coverage; I consider it to be below the bar of significant, independent coverage. Much of this consists of quotations and the subject's feelings, rather than being about the subject herself.
"Jean A. Stevens", Liahona, May 2010.	Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Stapley, Jonathan (2018). The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology. Oxford University Press. p. 100. ISBN 9780190844431.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event, consisting of one sentence about the subject (Not WP:SIGCOV).
Fowler, Geoffrey (8 April 2013). "U.S. News: Woman Leads Prayer at Mormon Event". Wall Street Journal.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Mason, David (9 April 2013). "A Mormon glass ceiling shattered". Washington Post.	WP:BLP1E source about the one event
Christensen, David (2015). A Thankful Heart: 31 Teachings to Recognize Blessings in Your Life. Cedar Fort, Inc. ISBN 9781462124992.	Consists entirely of a quotation from the subject, with nothing else: a Primary source
Brewer, Jen. We Are Daughters of Our Heavenly Father: Striving to Live the Young Women Values. Cedar Fort, Inc. ISBN 9781462124794.	Passing mentions of a quote the subject stated. Not WP:SIGCOV.
Petersen, Sara; Jones, Morgan; Toone, Trent (19 November 2004). "'Attitude of gratitude': 25 quotes from LDS leaders on being thankful". Deseret News.	Limited to only a quotation from the subject: a primary source
Walch, Ted (10 April 2018). "After 'electric' general conference, U.K. Mormons eager to see, hear President Nelson in London". Deseret News.	A single quotation from the subject, primary and not WP:SIGCOV
"Mormon woman who uttered historic prayer gets new assignment". Salt Lake Tribune. 2 March 2015.	Has two sentences about the subject. Not WP:SIGCOV
New Mission Presidents, Church News, 28 February 2015.	Primary source – not usable to establish notability
Walch, Tad (16 June 2017). "Mormon apostle at Oxford: Lessons learned from Watergate scandal". Deseret News.	Single, very short mention. Not WP:SIGCOV
Wilks, Doug (14 April 2018). "Inside the newsroom: How we follow the prophet (literally) around the world". Deseret News.	Single, very short mention. Not WP:SIGCOV
"General Auxiliaries: Sister Jean A. Stevens", lds.org	Primary source – not usable to establish notability

This is probably the strangest AfD I have ever take part in. It is one of a series of several dozen articles on LDS that North America has brought to deletion. LDS is unique in many ways, not least because the leadership of the church is largely in groups. Stevens was part of the Presidency of Primary (LDS Church), an organization that works to gibe a Christian upbringing to over a million member children. The Presidency is a group of three. The media usually covers them as a group, media runs profiles of all three in one article. The Utah press is another oddness, the major papers in Salt Lake City areDeseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune. Deseret is owned by the Mormon Church, but it is editorially independent. Deseret is not the Mormon version of the National Catholic Register or The Jewish Week. It is a real newspaper covering everything big city dailies cover, except that both it and the Salt Lake Tribune continue to cover Church news with beat reporters in the way all American big city papers used to cover the dominant denomination in their region (Catholics in Chicago, Baptists in Montgomery,) but papers in other big cities no longer do. in other words, Leaders of LDS are public figures. The oddest thing about this discussion is the intensity. A leader of a large organization, who travels, speaks works for the organization and gets press in far flung presses, and ONGOING, INDEPTH in the organizations headquarters city. Whose essays and authored prayers (writing a significant prayer is like writing a significant essay,) are cited in other people's books and essays. And who also was the principal in an event that had a national and international attention for a moment, a milestone that is now in the history books... To me, the quesiton is, why editors are putting such intensity into deleting this?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've done everything but address my source analysis above, but that's okay, because you have already stated that you consider the sources to be usable to establish notability. I disagree, because per Wikipedia's standards, they really don't. Outside of the one event, there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. My intentions are to be objective about the subject's notability; there are no feelings about it on my part (e.g. "such intensity", etc.), just objective analysis. You are applying your own standards of notability, but one sentence mentions and name checks (which are certainly not in-depth), along with quotations and primary sources just don't establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete excellent analysis of the refs. More effort has gone into sourcing this article than the other non notable LDS articles nominated recently - but it is just more of the same. Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Pixel Car Racer

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

Non-notable handheld game. No reviews, and written against WP:VG/MOS Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guideline. Best source I could find. Tera TIX 13:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Shah Salim Khan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Alexandermcnabb: I have added another secondary source that directly talks about the court order to "de-seat" the subject. so I think the primary source can be used to augment this in light of the accusation that this is fake news. The parliament's web site also shows no name for his district. [6]. There are sources that say he was elected sources that say he was disqualified but none that show he is still a sitting member so I think it is reasonable to keep the information about him having been disqualified. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have now added a total of three different secondary news sources that report his disqualification by the SUPREME APPELLATE COURT, GILGIT-BALTISTAN so I think there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that he has been disqualified. Whilst trying to find some positive stuff to say about him I found another story about his father having had him and his brother arrested over fake documents in a property feud [7] [8] one of which also mentions that he was disqualified...I don't think I shall be adding this as per WP:UNDUE. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Bench

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillips Umbubu

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Farrell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Chemicals

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. I can't find significant coverage in independent sources. The subject does not meet WP:GNG. ChemNerd (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn for now as there could be more sources after a week. (non-admin closure) Flooded with them hundreds 11:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plus (Martin Garrix EP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3DMet

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - no indication of notability, based entirely on a single primary reference. Somebody needs to care that it exists other than the people who created/run it, and there is no indication that is the case. That it exists in not sufficient. Unless it is referred to in, say, a review article detailing some of the available biochemical structure databases, it just isn't notable. Agricolae (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with previous comments.Rogermx (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 3DMet database site itself is the RS. Some 126 other articles refer to it [9]. Similar to most of Category:Chemical databases (49). For example, PubChem is sourced by reference #1 to ... PubChem. - DePiep (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Other Wikipedia articles refer to it, because a template makes that easy. That doesn't count for so much. The article on PubChem has secondary sources from other organizations, in additions to links to PubChem itself. The journal article introducing 3DMet has only 10 citations on Google Scholar and 4 on Web of Science, compared to 1,015 GS citations and 683 by the publisher's database for the journal article introducing PubChem. This doesn't speak to 3DMet being widely influential. XOR'easter (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The RL database is the source (as I wrote), not the wiki article. Nothing WP:CIRCULAR. And other articles do refer to it (i.e., to the database not the article) not because it is "easy" (?!), but because it is the source. Now since you have access to the 14 citations, please add them and we're done. Then, "not ... widely" is not an argument for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I apologize if I was unclear. There are not 14 sources. Everything listed in Web of Science is included in the Google Scholar list (the latter search service tends to be more radically inclusive, scraping PDFs from everywhere it can find them, and listing items regardless of peer review status). Nor do the sources really help to establish notability. "Review of natural product databases" and "Many InChis and quite some feat" give it barely a mention. Ditto "Public Databases of Plant Natural Products for Computational Drug Discovery". And the other article I can find through Web of Science is by the creators of 3DMet themselves, so it's not an independent source. I'm sorry, but there just isn't a lot here to work with. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, to establish notability you need reliable sources independent of the subject. You can cite the subjects themselves in a limited sense for definitional information, but not to establish that they are notable. Likewise, reference to it on other Wikipedia pages is irrelevant, as it is very easy to throw a brief mention onto a peripherally-relevant page, even though it isn't really a noteworthy aspect of that subject. Someone in the real world (independent of the people who run the database) needs to have cared enough to have produced something citable. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have notified {{Chembox}} (talk) [10], WT:CHEMISTRY and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology once more, clarifying that removal of this article would also imply removal of the data row from {{Chembox}} & asking for sources if one wants to save this all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. I'm not seeing the reqired WP:RS to establish WP:N, either in the current article or in my own searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One ref in the article and google not persuading me. Szzuk (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atal Vatika

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

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

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

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

Delete fails WP:NGO and WP:GNG same as Atal Indian. a Tree planting campaign, started by an actor has only received interview like WP:INHERITED coverage. Its website says, [11]Atal Indian has been conceptualized by Nitin Sahrawat, as part of his social outreach efforts.. This is a minor 2 para coverage. This is coverage of the actor mostly. This is an interview and not Independent coverage. The content at Nitin_Sahrawat#Social_causes is enough for this sort of coverage.--DBig Xrayᗙ 12:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Going strictly by the rules, one would have suggested merging Atal Vatika with Atal Indian, but Atal Vatika seems like a work in progress. Keeping this article would ensure that it would serve as a reference, and act as a blueprint for the creation of more urban forests in India.The Seeker Syndrome (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: The Seeker Syndrome (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Can't find any third-party sources. wumbolo ^^^ 21:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Baltika Breweries#Baltika. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baltika No. 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denis Aksenov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 11:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Servelec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete: insufficient sourcing to meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Times devoted a substantial article to the company. I think that meets WP:CORPDEPTH.Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Clear consensus not to delete, but a toss-up between keeping at this title and merging. And, if merge, unclear what's the best target. For now, I'll call this NC, and people can continue to discuss a possible merge on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Mail Transport System

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Harris (software developer)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep This guy has been around a long time, kind of a founding father in internet mail, web communications. I am surprised his article is so small, [12] Govvy (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's certainly a major figure in the world of email software development. Sadly, he's also very much a recluse, so there isn't much information about him online. For what it's worth, here's a non-New Zealand article about him and his work. [13] Grutness...wha? 13:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Lacking information which may not meet the WP:GNG, as I agree with Editor-1 he is just non notable software delvopler of just 2 proprietary softwares. Sheldybett (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Pegasus was quite a thing in its day, and an interesting piece of world and NZ internet history. Yes this article is a stub, but keeping it gives a chance for it to be completed Somej (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Municipal Art Society. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Center (art gallery)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Municipal Art Society. The NYT article provides significant coverage, but sources found in searches and and those added to the article are mostly listings in guide books that do not quite provide significant coverage. Other sources also only provide mentions, rather than significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Michael Sayman. czar 03:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Snaps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Card warp

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for that. It's hard to tell, but it appears the Michael Close video is self-published - at least the corresponding book is. [14] is by L&L Publishing. I can't find "Apocalypse Volume 3 Number 7". SportingFlyer talk 23:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Goodman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was redirect to The Hugs. czar 03:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Delegato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holly Liu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

keep sources look okay. GH award says a lot IMO. Between all that I'd say we are above any reasonable definition of notability. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, while the award is a clear indication of notability, the bio that goes with it [15] is nearly an ideal source. You'd best believe an award like that was vetted carefully. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are fine. Forbes and inc.Szzuk (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge per consensus and WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

213 discography

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRI Pointe Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Article contains plenty of references which discuss in-depth Tri Pointe Group ([16] [17]). Also plenty of refs through a quick Google News search.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that there are many reliable sources that makes the article satisfy WP:GNG. Vinodbasker (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Sandstein 11:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AIR Faizabad

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twirlin'

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Dancing using canes as props goes back a lot further than the 1950s and I find the uncited claim that it is of African American origin highly dubious. At least, we need unimpeachable sources for the claim. Of the references in the article, the Fine and Malone books do not mention the term and I can't make out whether the Keith Group Innovation source is meant to be a book, web page or what. The only thing that actually has a url or other kind of link that can be followed is the external link which is dead or broken. The claim that the "history of the cane dates back to Eastern African culture of the 4000th century BCE" is alone enough to set off very loud alarm bells. SpinningSpark 18:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has transpired. Per very low user participation herein, closing with No prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Wife

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sandler

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sander (candidate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entempo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was SNOW redirect.(non-admin closure) 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toongabbie Public School

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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