Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 7

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 August	8 August >

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 speedy delete. No way that this meets WP:NCORP. Mostly non-WP:RS sources and the promotional tone expected of a paid editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ScaleFactor

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

Non-notable company that fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article fails to assert a clear claim to significance, and the articles sourcing does not meet Wikipedia's NCORP guidelines. For example, the sources cited are all either trival mentions, press releases (or rehashings of press releases), or venture/funding announcements, with none of said sources providing an in-depth, independent look at the company. I will also mention WP:REFSPAM, as many of the sources (over half) are links to the homepages of companies that invest in ScaleFactor, with none of them providing any sort of context in regards to the subject whatsoever. It should also be noted that the awards won by the company are all local awards concerning Austin, Texas, the company's home city, and thus are trivial when compared to the global scope of the encyclopedia. ScaleFactor is also a relatively new company (founded in 2014) with between 50 and 200 hundred employees. In short, the subject has failed to assert a claim to significance and has failed to accrue the necessary coverage to be considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — have to agree that this does not meet notability standards for inclusion. I've expanded search through Newspapers.com, Archive.org and Google Books and there is really very little to be found among these. This does not preclude the emergence of sufficient reliable sources in the future to support article creation. Thus, delete with no prejudice against re-creation, but that such re-creation should rely upon new reliable sources. The current sources are by and large press releases and blog postings by non-notable authors, as well as a number of external links masquerading as citations. There are several reliable sources, but not sufficient to support article creation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:38, 8 August 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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Reason: WP:R2. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Waine

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. He has played against Bentleigh Greens SC in the FFA Cup competition but they are only a semi-pro team. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userify The Aussie season doesn't start for another couple of months, but the player is likely to be notable very soon. Just a bit WP:TOOSOON and one of those instances where an AfD is kind of a waste of time. SportingFlyer talk 01:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Userify apologies was just going off previous Nix players that made their debut in the FFA cup that I then created articles for. Forgotting those games were against other A-League teams compared to Greens this time. I'd say there is still a chance Waine will play for the Nix and would like to expand the article anyway for when he does. NZFC^(talk) 07:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NZ Footballs Conscience: best result here seems to be to just move it to your draftspace. SportingFlyer talk 12:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora! Should have thought of that. Done so now. NZFC^(talk) 12:58, 12 August 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) 00:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Osborne

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several RS that covered his death, which does not alone make him notable, but it is pretty wide spread. Due to the coverage of his death I am having trouble finding sources discussing him before that. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was this much to say about him before his death hit the news. I haven't evaluated the sources. Mortee (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not very different than now. Mostly sources from OWOW which per WP:PW/RS is not reliable, the other 2 from Solie just list every tittle history, its listed as not proven reliable, but either way it doesnt prove notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since no other votes have arrived, I'll weigh in. Claim to notability in the article is as a "developmental talent", which isn't decisive. GNG not met by the sources in the article. After excluding hits mentioning his cause of death (WP:1E) I can't find reliable sources discussing him in-depth. › Mortee _talk 23:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league wrestler. Moab12 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 05:32, 14 August 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. Consensus is that the subject meets notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Thomas (political advisor)

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

Career does not appear notable. Most sources are his own columns; a local obit is not proof of notability DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the article. It's a stub, but The Los Angeles Times is a major newspaper...Zigzig20s (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Los Angeles Times is regional, rather than local, and a full obituary therein should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A big obituary (looks like 3/4 of a full page) in a big newspaper plus a later LA Times article seem enough to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage. Clearly a man of significant influence in California politics over the decades. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are reliable and meet coverage. Emily Khine (talk) 19:57, 12 August 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. Consensus is that the additional references supplied have not been considered significant enough to avoid deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlaNet Finance

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

The only references are a list of websites which do not have any affiliation with this organization. The title of the article is "PlaNet Finance" but the website for PlaNet Finance has been offline for years. PlaNet Finance is supposedly called Positive Planet now, according to the article, yet there is no explanation nor sources given to substantiate this. At the very least, the article name should be changed from PlaNet Finance to Positive Planet, as the article doesn't mention PlaNet Finance nor reference it.

There are no references in this article, other than a single 2015 blog post sourced from HuffPo, "Let's be positive", written by Jacques Attali who is the co-founder of PlaNet Finance, and was the president of Positive Planet at the time. That does not meet WP:RS or WP:NPOV.

No history of the organization's founders or current leaders are provided in the article. There are no specifics of what the organization has accomplished, neither in the past nor recently. I question its inclusion under our criteria for a notable organization or company.--FeralOink (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may be a case of "once notable, always notable", since some activities have apparently been transferred to other organizations. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with prejudice Fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. Corporate 'cruft. Was not notable then, and certainly not notable now. Sources are very unconvincing. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment above. Redditaddict_6_9 01:25, 15 August 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) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Soares

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

Fail in WP:GNG, no relevant work. Fail in WP:PORNBIO.

*deleted by unanimity in pt wiki[1] Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasn't won any significant/notable awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Non-notable and fails PORNBIO and GNG . Kpg jhp jm 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Churches of Jesus Christ International

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

No secondary sources mentioning the organization can be found. Article cites no sources and does not appear to be notable. Chumash11 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Splinter group of a splinter group. Search shows no significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent soures, fails WP:GNG. A redirect to Oneness Pentecostalism would be a generous alternative, if only to help disentangle the many similar-sounding denominations on Wikipedia. Bakazaka (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article used to have references. Those references were removed in a series of three edits in January 2013, here. Sources don't have to be visible on the Internet. I think the sources that used to be in the article need to checked out before any decision is made on removing this article. - Donald Albury 23:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those references are explanatory footnotes, not sources. Another is a reference to a source written by a pastor in the denomination, who also apparently contributed to the article's talk page. That cannot be used to establish notability. What's left is a blurb in a handbook/list of all Christian denominations in the USA, dated 1995. Note that 1995 is prior to the "revival" leading to the establishment of the specific organization discussed in the article. Internet or not, this does not add up to significant coverage of this article's subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was not arguing to keep this article. I'm dismayed that all the citations were removed without an explanation, and with no objections, and than sat for 5 1/2 years after all citations were removed. After looking around, I don't see anything that would meet our sourcing policies. The churches (they appear to have splintered, again) seem to have fallen into hard times, and become even less likely to show up in reliable sources. - Donald Albury 16:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep -- This is a denomination. If it did have 100,000 adherents and 25 churches, that ought to be enough to keep. It looks like a splinter, not a splinter of a splinter. I have restored two of the references removed in 2013. Other references were notes doubting the statistics, which were presumably all from Mead, in particular questioning the credibility of the size of the mother church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference information in the "Handbook of Denominations in the United States" is self-reported by religious groups, as the book's publisher clearly points out: "The information for each denomination has been provided by the religious organizations themselves and focuses on the denominations' doctrines, statistics, and histories." That makes it a primary source, and unusable for establishing notability under WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment when the article says there are more than 25 churches involved in the organization ... The largest of the churches is the original church in Cleveland, Tennessee, which had a membership of approximately 37,500 in 1990., I assume it means "churches" to mean separate sub-denominations. Due to the many churches headquartered in Cleveland, Tennessee (including the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)) and that town having a population of 41,285, it can't possibly refer to the number of local members. The best redirect target I can find is List of Christian denominations#Oneness Pentecostalism, which isn't ideal for a group of this size (even an umbrella group). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:58, 9 August 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 Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star). Firm consensus that article is an unneeded content fork (at this time) (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Star

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

Only source is a 90s-era personal webpage. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a lot of content and sources about the topic at Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star). At the very least redirecting this there is due. Opposite of North Star. That aside, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A better WP:BEFORE check may be in order in the future. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with possibilities) to Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star): the target currently contains more and better-referenced information. An outright delete seems unwarranted when there is such a good redirect target and for something that is likely notable anyway. Lithopsian (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star), without prejudice against splitting that section off as its own article if it eventually becomes large enough to warrant that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The sum total of information on this article can contain consists of which star is closest, and which stars will eventually become closest. That's well encompassed in the couple of paragraphs at Pole star. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star), no prejudice against re-creation. That is a better target than Sigma Octantis, the other option. Content analogous to Historical brightest stars would be particularly useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pole star#Southern pole star (South Star) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion is provided. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron I Butler

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

Recreation of twice deleted article. Just added a middle initial... Qwirkle (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: the creator of the article came in, blanked my statement, and wrote over it; see the history. Qwirkle (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page is a close enough paraphrase of subject's IMDb bio that it raises WP:COPYVIO concerns, but the subject is verifiably nominated for multiple news and documentary Emmy awards, see for example [2]. Bakazaka (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the plagiarism-by-thesaurus is a big part of it, but there’s also a major distinction between “Bob was nominated for an award” and “Bob was a member of a small group of people named in an award nomination” and “Bob is visible in a nominated work, if you use freeze-frame, a magnifying glass, and your 20/12 vision”. This cite is closer to the top of the heap than the bottom, but it isn’t a slam-dunk, either. Finally, the creator’s track history should be taken into account, no? Qwirkle (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page has already been deleted under the name Aaron Butler. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, no? Or was the first one actually unrelated? Qwirkle (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created two pages, one was speedy deleted, this is a different title as his actual credited name in films is Aaron I. Butler. I apologize to Qwirkle for editing his comment inadvertently, if you actually look at the view history you will see I made an additional comment to contest his deletion. This is a highly notable film editor who has edited film(s) nominated for Academy Awards, nominated for two Emmys and has won one. Also as for my track record on Wikipedia, I have created 7 pages so far, only this one has been nominated for deletion. Dutchkash (talk)

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)} 20:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Methodist Rome

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

No evidence that Methodist Rome was ever a nickname for Toronto; suspected case of citogenesis RogerSheaffe (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Reposting comments from AfD's talk page] This article was created (with no sources cited) in 2004, but there appears to be no evidence that Toronto was ever commonly referred as the 'Methodist Rome' in the late C19/early C20. All online sources I could find post-date (and appear to be derived from) the Wikipedia article – seems like a case of citogenesis or circular referencing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents The paucity of evidence for the 'Methodist Rome' moniker was recently highlighted and discussed on Twitter by 12:36, a Toronto online news site; numerous respondents were unable to find any pre-wiki evidence for the appellation. I personally have trawled historic newspaper databases and found absolutely no corroboration for the nickname. The only evidence that has yet surfaced is from Robertson Davies's 'What's bred in the bone', first published in 1985, in which a character refers to Toronto as 'a city sometimes called "the Rome of Methodism"' (p.148). https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BLkLAQAAMAAJ&dq=robertson+davies+%22rome+of+methodism%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22rome+of+methodism%22 This is the only known evidence for the phrase – and a slightly different version at that. But it was written in the late twentieth century in a work of fiction, and is hardly a justification for an entire wikipedia page based on the claim that 'Methodist Rome' was a common moniker for Toronto. If anyone else has evidence suggesting the nickname 'Methodist Rome' was in actual use in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, I'd happily stand corrected. But otherwise this looks like a case of citogenesis and I suggest the page be deleted.RogerSheaffe (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete I'm pretty sure you went deep enough down the rabbit hole to figure out that this article is a hoax. ~~Speedy~~ Delete this article since hoaxes are not tolerated on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And move the page to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. 344917661X (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which speedy deletion criterion are you suggesting this meets, 344917661X? And on what basis are you suggesting this is a hoax, bearing in mind that the page to which you linked recognizes that a mere factual error does not qualify as a hoax? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right about the factual error part, but I believe that articles, which are identified as hoaxes or factual errors should be speedily deleted to protect the encyclopedia and the world from misinformation. 344917661X (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@344917661X: If you're calling for speedy deletion, then which criterion does it meet? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G3 for speedy deletion criteria. I know that it might just be a factual error, but it could be a blatant hoax. I'll check the edit history of the user who created the article to see if I find anything suspicious. 344917661X (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Even if it were a hoax (and you seem to have suggested it isn't in saying I guess you are right about the factual error part), it also has to meet the standard of "blatant". How is "might be" and "blatant" not inherently contradictory in this context? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found out that it likely isn't a blatant hoax. 344917661X (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Toronto being called Methodist Rome was featured as a "fact" on the Did you know part of the Main Page on October 18, 2004 according to the article's talk page. 344917661X (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I fail to see how the fact that it was on DYK is of any relevance to the question of whether the article qualifies under WP:G3. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to mention it. 344917661X (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The creator SimonP doesn't seem to be suspicious at all, which means that the article is likely just a factual error, as such, I have removed the speedy part in my vote. Although I think we should notify the user on his talk page about the deletion. 344917661X (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this is a factual error rather than a hoax, that is still grounds for deleting it. Vorbee (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete unless someone can provide a pre-2004 source using the term. The alternative might be to repurpose it to Methodism in Toronto, as the content (apart from the title) is based on books from academic publishers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably something sourced to "gossip" in the halcyon days of the project. I've found nothing online, including at a Canadian newspaper database (1863-1926) at [3]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax indeed ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:31, 14 August 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 Ateneo de Manila University. There appears to be general consensus for a redirect. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 01:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ateneo Social Science Research Center

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. Institute of the jesuit Ateneo de Manila University, not notable enough for a separate article. WP:COI. The Banner talk 16:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Ateneo Social Science Research Center~~Ateneo de Manila University. I agree with nominator that it is not notable enough for a separate article — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 18:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC) fixed infinite loop — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]
@Billhpike:--Do you mean to redirect the article to itself? That would be fun:-) ∯WBG^converse 08:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Lacks independent sources to establish notability. It is a shame that the article creator does not seem to understand what constitutes notability and good sourcing, and that a half dozen or so editors have to run around cleaning up the large field of Jesuit themed articles with extremely poor sourcing.96.127.243.251 (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.The article creator is still incompetent (as evident from the sources, he present at these AfDs from time to time) and a half dozen editors have to go after him, cleaning his mess.......∯WBG^converse 08:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Zero notability.Do not even merit a redirect.All these private universities and their ventures, manifested in their individual articles by crafty spammers.∯WBG^converse 08:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough coverage to satisfy the weaker WP:NOTEWORTHY criteria, so a redirect is appropriate. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above with no prejudice for future split off if better sourcing can be found Chetsford (talk) 00:30, 14 August 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanti Community Animation Movement

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

Seem to fail WP:GNG, article supported by dead links and unsuitable sources (YouTube fails WP:RS) The Banner talk 16:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of the nine references, number 3,5,8 are now dead but the other six are alive and together show notability. Also, please add to these one which updates number 3 on foreign volunteers; this which shows the natinal army's collaboration with the school; Italians lending assistance; The "European Culture Foundation" organized a charity concert at Schloss Nörvenich.... The benefit of the charity concert will be donated to the Christian charity project "Shanti".; Lund University on reconciliation in post-war Sri Lanka; and this; and this, all independent of Shanti and showing its opngoing relevance in post-war Sri Lanka. Jzsj (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jzsj: Are you aware of this group's Sinhalese or Tamil language name? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not found those languages used in the web articles, which is the sole resource for all my information on this organization (as on virtually all others). Jzsj (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not a single source (other than opinion pieces/columns) covers the subject any significantly.Willing to change shall regional sources be located.∯WBG^converse 09:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 11:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the third party, reliable independent sourcing in multiple publications that is necessary to establish notability.96.127.243.251 (talk) 08:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There are no sources of which one can speak. Most are primary ones, and at least two are dead, may they rest in peace. Someone's pulling our leg, perhaps, and I do not approve of anyone, especially priests, pulling my leg. -The Gnome (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, for about the 6th time, that I was deceived by the reviewers who passed my development centre articles with hardly ever a tag!!! From their ready acceptance of the articles I came in the end to follow the principle that what was required was that the institute/organization had at least a regional impact and at least one citation that was not directly connected to the organization. As to expecting greater sanctity from priests, the Catholic Second Vatican Council of Bishops, in the 1960s, decreed that lay persons are called to the same sanctity of life as priests and religious, and this was reiterated in Pope Francis' exhortation Gaudete et exsultate of last spring. Jzsj (talk) 14:06, 15 August 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. Looking at most of the sources, although they are not perfect, they show definitively notability, and the case made with the Aberdeen City Council is convincing. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 1l2l3k (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Edinburgh Council

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

Redirect to Politics of Edinburgh, as it was before the expansion, which occurred in the last days. The Council determines the politics and there is no reason why there should be two articles, and not one. It just creates confusion. 1l2l3k (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand where you are coming from. However, I think that The City of Edinburgh Council is a major enough organisation that should have its own dedicated article, Aberdeen City Council exists for example. Politics of Glasgow was renamed to Glasgow City Council which I think was a mistake as a lot of useful information was lost. I think there is room for compromise and to have both articles.

The best way to compromise is by improving the article and showing notability. This can be done by putting references on each paragraph. I will consider withdrawing the nomination if I see notability satisfied in a well-referenced article. If you think that has happened, please feel free to ping me or drop me a note in my talk page. Regards! --1l2l3k (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this sounds important enough to have its own article. Vorbee (talk) 18:40, 7 August 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugat Foundation

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. Institute of the jesuit Ateneo de Manila University, not notable enough for a separate article. WP:COI. The Banner talk 16:40, 7 August 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)} 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Das Bhandari Award

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

Non-notable award with no coverage. Cant seem to find a single source to support notability. Fit India 16:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some trawling, I retrieved [4] and another document which basically proves that the award exists and is considered prestigious within IIT Kanpur. However without any third party coverage of this award (however prestigious it may be) it doesn't pass WP:GNG — F R ⁺ 05:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Delete-IITK's award for the best faculty (as chosen by students) and has an in-university reputation.Nothing more, nothing less.I may be accused of having a COI, as a sister-institute-student, though.......∯WBG^converse 09:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAWARD. No sources provided ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:32, 14 August 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 as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Processor Project

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

This is about a project which is unclear about its notability and lacks the reliable sources. Chabota Kanguya (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - lacks reliable sources and fails to prove notability of the project for inclusion in Wikipedia. --HunterM267 ^talk 18:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't establish notability, as well as obvious COI issues. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note - someone tagged this as copyvio (which it appears to be) LittlePuppers (talk) 21:31, 8 August 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Fomichev

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

Ordinary academic with no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. (PROD contested by the creator of the article, with no reason given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary academic who does not stand out in any way that I can find. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ 120 publications that do not show up on Google scholar. Odd? Maybe someone can clarify. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

It's probably a language/alphabet issue. See here. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this help, which clarifies things a lot. There seem to be several V V Formichevs, one an astronomer, one a condensed matter physicist. I can find only one entry relating to linear systems with 22 cites, so it's a provisional Delete from me. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave

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

Ordinary weather reports. More people at the zoo. Fails WP:NEVENT. — JFG ^talk 21:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It occurs to me we should probably merge these articles into something. I notice there are, for example, a lot of "Global storm activity of..." articles (this one being an example) so perhaps something like that is appropriate here. These events are worth mentioning, but don't justify a standalone article in most cases. This is Paul (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given that this heatwave resulted in record temperatures for the time of year that it occurred I feel it is noteworthy enough to keep this article, and to keep it as a separate article. Rillington (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these weather events are extreme and abnormal, that have an effect on people's lives, sometimes resulting in death and can also effect a nations economy. As well as producing record temperatures. All of these articles should remain as individual articles as they all have different effects for that specific heat wave. They are a significant event and should each be kept on Wikipedia. NewandClean (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely an WP:ILIKEIT argument. Can you point us to any sources describing significant or WP:LASTING effects of this particular Indian summer? The article as it stands only quotes minor anecdotal issues, such as selling fewer raincoats. Oh my! — JFG ^talk 20:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing really comes into the territory of a severe heat wave. Everything reads as a standard heat wave rather than a severe one that would meet GNG or NEVENT. Standard non-notable heatwaves still break records occasionally and kill the ill and elderly. There's needs to be a bit more than that. The arguments above about the time of year are odd since heat waves can occur any time of year. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. Agathoclea (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NOTNEWS WP:LASTING in complete agreement with User:Kingofaces43 so I wont repeat his statement.--DBig Xray 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and examples listed of deleted heat wave articles. Not news, not notable. Redditaddict_6_9 04:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. We have no sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article currently has 16 references and from a number of sources. Also, the variety of sources suggest that the heatwave was significant enough for it to receive widespread coverage from the UK media so I'd say that this helps to make it notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Rillington (talk) 16:18, 15 August 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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Kinen Kōdō

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. » Shadowowl | talk 11:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Showa Women's University#Hitomi Memorial Hall. Bakazaka (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep mpt as a university building, biut as a major concert hall. We almost always keep such articles, as sources can be found. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Major concert hall. Capacity of over two thousand. Concerts by many important orchestras. Without prejudice to that, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because Showa Women's University#Hitomi Memorial Hall exists as a potential merger target. James500 (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not inherited, but the many notable performers at the venue demonstrate that the venue has achieved sufficient notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NBUILD #2 —Zingarese talk · contribs 12:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zero sources have been posted in these comments so far, but after more investigation I'm switching my !vote to 'keep' because 1) some of the concerts claimed on the primary sources are verifiable, for example on YouTube, 2) a Google Books search finds back issues of periodicals that have announcements or references to these concerts, 3) notability is not lost even though the hall is much less significant as a concert venue today, and 4) the hall is one of the recording sites for the TV Asahi cultural program 題名のない音楽会. Bakazaka (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zingarese ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:34, 14 August 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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dans le Noir

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

Neither the cited sources nor anything else suggests that this business satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The nearest thing there is to a suitable source is one brief article in the New York Times, but that is not sufficiently substantial coverage on its own. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @JamesBWatson: See the references listed at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dans_le_Noir_%3F Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen those references. Have you? Or did you just see that there are rather a lot of them and assume that meant the article was well-sourced, without actually checking the sources? Did you notice that the article is tagged with "Cet article ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources"? (For non-readers of French, that is to say the article is tagged for inadequate citation of sources.) It is also tagged with "Le ton de cet article ou de cette section est trop promotionnel ou publicitaire" (i.e. tagged as promotion or advertising). The French article is, in fact an absolutely classic example of WP:BOMBARD: you write a promotional article on your non-notable topic, and in order to give the impression of notability you fill it with a large number of references, without regard to the quality or relevance of those references.

I wasn't going to mention the French article, as it doesn't seem to me to contribute anything useful, but since you have asked I shall give a summary of the kinds of references there are.

Dans le Noir's own web site.

A page on a web site which near the top of every page bears the notice "MARKETING COMMUNICATION MEDIAS DIGITAL". I don't think anyone needs to understand French to work out how much of an independent source that is.

A four sentence mention in a page on a web site called "About Time", which says that the best thing about "Dans le Noir" is that it is mentioned in a film called "About Time", same as the title of the web site.

A brief mention (three sentences or so? I forgot to make a note of the number when I checked the reference) of the fact that two members of the British royal family are "rumoured" to have dined at Dans Le Noir.

A page about a new business set up by Didier Roche, including a mention in one sentence of the fact that he was also the founder of "Dans Le Noir". No actual information about "Dans Le Noir".

An interview about activities in the dark, in which in one answer to one question the interviewee mentions dark restaurants. He does not make it explicit that he has in mind this particular chain of reataurants, but even making the reasonable assumption that he has, it is not substantial coverage by any stretch.

Some pages which don't actually mention "Dans le Noir".

A couple of pages where the original is no longer available and the archive URL in the article's reference just leads to a page saying "We are not allowed to archive this url".

One writer's personal account of a visit to Dans le Noir on Huffington Post.

The short answer, therefore, is that the references in the French Wikipedia article do not come within a thousand miles of the kind of coverage required by Wikipedia's notability standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Alston, Adam; Welton, Martin (2017). Theatre in the Dark: Shadow, Gloom and Blackout in Contemporary Theatre. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1474251196. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The book notes:
  
  But it is Dans Le Noir? that has ended up as the biggest commercial success. Dans Le Noir? now has permanent branches in London, Paris, Barcelona and St. Petersburg, and temporary restaurants have popped up in Moscow (2006), Lille (2007), Warsaw (2008), Bangkok (2008 and 2010), Geneva (2009), New York (2011/2013) and Riyadh (2013) (see Dans Le Noir 2014). The Parisian branch was the first, founded by the social entrepreneur Edouard de Broglie, in cooperation with Etienne Boisrond. It opened in 2004 with the support of the Paul Guinot Foundation for Blind People, which is a charitable organization that also supported Reilhac's Le Goût du Noir five years earlier. However, Dans Le Noir? was always intended by de Broglie as a company that could transform social responsibility into a profitable business capable of employing a large number of visually impaired and blind people in a visionist labour market, and it now self-supports as a private company (de Broglie 2015).
2. Henshaw, John M. (2012). A Tour of the Senses: How Your Brain Interprets the World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 236. ISBN 1421404362. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The book notes:
  
  At Dans le Noir, a Paris restaurant that also has locations in other cities, including London and New York, the waiters are blind. All the better to serve their clientele, who, for the duration of their meal "In the Dark," are blind as well. All meals at Dans le Noir are served and consumed in rooms of profound, absolute darkness. This is a gimmick, but one with several goals behind it. Chief among them is to foster relations between the worlds of the seeing and the nonseeing, to give the sighted some idea what it is like to be totally blind, if only for an hour or so. But beyond that, Dans le Noir sees its mission as helping its clients "completely reevaluate their notions of taste and smell," according to its Web site, danslenoir.com. In an atmosphere of profound darkness, the eye is powerless to influence the dining experience.
3. Thorpe, Nick (2014). "Chapter 25: Dine in the Dark". 52 New Things: The Least Famous Nick Thorpe in the World and His Journey to Conquer the Boredom of Modern Life. Bancyfelin: Crown House Publishing. pp. 105–109. ISBN 1781352062. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The book notes:
  
  I'd been told about Dans le Noir? by a colleague at my then job, with it being described as a dining experience like no other. It was a fairly standard French concept restaurant with the hook being that you ate a three-course meal in total and absolute darkness. Although you can choose whether to eat fish, meat or vegetables, you have no idea what the blind waiters are actually going to serve you. What's that? Oh yes, 40% of the staff (including all the waiters) are blind.
  ...
  The restaurant is fairly non-descript from the outside, and could easily be mistaken for any of the dilapidated neighbouring bars that line the streets of Farringdon in London. It provides a bank of lockers along one wall for diners to deposit all bags, phones and anything that could produce light.
  ...
  The darkness in the dining room was absolute. Literally no light whatsoever.
  ...
  Our dinner lasted two and a half hours. Once we had acclimatised to the darkness, it was actually incredibly liberating to be able to act in whatever way you pleased with no fear of anyone seeing you. Of course, we behaved like children and threw food at each other, scared ourselves with surprise hair pulls, and generally acted up. But why wouldn't you? The beauty of that kind of dining experience is that it allows you to regress to a happy place normally reserved for small children but now deliciously reinvented for slightly drunk adults.
4. Huet, Natalie (2011-12-02). Bremer, Catherine; Casciato, Paul (eds.). "Blind French eatery seeks to conquer New York". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  A French restaurant where diners cannot see what they are eating, often spill their wine and must conduct conversations while staring into pitch darkness has proved such a success in Europe that it is making a foray into the Americas.
  After expanding from Paris into London, Moscow, Barcelona and St. Petersburg, the “Dans Le Noir” chain, staffed by blind waiters, will open an outlet in the neon-lit tourist hub of New York’s Times Square this month.
  ...
  Dans Le Noir, French for “In the Dark,” is not the first restaurant of its kind, although it has spread the fastest, having served more than a million people at its restaurants and temporary venues in Warsaw, Geneva and Bangkok.
  ...
  The first permanent Dans Le Noir restaurant opened in Paris in 2004, followed by London in 2006. At the time, the British tabloids were harsh, Edouard de Broglie recalls.
5. Rackl, Lori (2010-05-12). "Blind tasting - More than culinary curiosity, 'dark dining' eateries make people see food in a new light". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  We were sitting in pitch blackness in London's Dans le Noir restaurant.
  French for "in the dark," Dans le Noir serves multicourse meals in a room where you can't see a single, solitary thing, from your plate of mystery food to the faces of your fellow diners. Blind waiters guide you through a wonderfully disorienting evening that begins when you put your right hand on the shoulder of the person in front of you and follow a clumsy conga line into the dark-as-a-cave dining room.
  ...
  Dans le Noir is part of a "dark dining" trend that started a decade ago in Zurich. Four blind people created a restaurant called Blindekuh, the German word for the game blind man's bluff. The novel concept caught on in Europe and more recently has spread to Asia and North America.
  Dans le Noir opened in Paris in 2004, followed by franchises in London and Barcelona. Raclin said the first U.S. outpost in slated to open in New York later this year.
  Diners at Dans le Noir choose from one of four color-coded mystery menus: green for vegetarians, red for meat eaters, blue for seafood lovers and white for those willing to be completely surprised. I figured I'd go big or go home, so I went with white.
6. Button, James (2006-06-17). "Diners stumble on a restaurant that turns tables on its customers". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  My family and I are in Dans le Noir, a new London restaurant where, as the English translation of the name suggests, you eat in the dark. By dark I don't mean shadowy or can't-quite-see, like being under a doona or in a forest on a moonless night. I mean where you cannot even see your hand in front of your face.
  ...
  Dans le Noir opened in Paris in 2004 and in London in February, the brainchild of two Frenchmen, Edouard de Broglie and Etienne Boisrond, in alliance with a blind association. De Broglie says he had made some money in IT and wanted to invest it in something useful. The London restaurant provides work for 10 blind or partially-sighted waiters.
7. Gilbert, Ian (2008-06-07). "A dinner that's out of sight". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  I'm dining in the dark at London's Dans Le Noir (In The Dark), and when I say dark, this is pitch-black, can't-see-your-hand-in-front-of-your-face dark. The concept is simple and symbolic: all the waiters are blind and for the duration of your meal, the tables are turned. The waiters are in command: you rely on them to lead you to your seat, to deliver the meal and to lead you back to the ante-room.
  On arrival, we choose a menu colour: white (could be anything), red (no seafood), blue (seafood) and green (vegetarian). Then, leaving bags and anything light-emitting - mobile phone, electronic car key, even a watch with a fluorescent dial - in the lockers provided, we are instructed to hold the shoulder of the person in front while our waiter, at the head of this tentative conga line, guides us through the curtain into the gathering gloom. I'm not afraid of the dark but am not exactly enamoured of claustrophobia. Once seated I feel fine.
  Dans Le Noir originated in Paris four years ago and has expanded to include Moscow and London, in Farringdon, within sight of St Paul's Cathedral and a short hop from the St Pancras Eurostar terminal.
8. Gecker, Jocelyn (2004-09-23). "Blind feed the blind at new Paris eatery". Boston.com. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  At "Dans le Noir" -- In the Dark -- it's not just that the lights are off and curtains closed. Diners sit in a room of inky blackness that the eyes never adjust to. And that's the idea.
  ...
  The 55-seat restaurant, which opened in July on a street beside the Pompidou Center museum, draws a diverse crowd that comes for a variety of reasons.
9. Cody, Gemima (2018-06-19). "Dining in the dark at Dans le Noir". Good Food. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  As far as immersive dining experiences go, it's probably a lot more comfortable to dine in Dans le Noir's impenetrable darkness than at London's all-nude Bunyadi. But I guess that depends on which of your fears is greater: public nudity, or dining with strangers while deprived of a key sense for more than an hour.
  Both experiences are guaranteed to push your buttons. But at Dans le Noir, the French franchise that now has a branch at South Yarra's Como Hotel, there's more to its pitch than a gimmick.
  You might have heard of the franchise, also known as dining in the dark. The Paris branch was founded by socially-minded tech entrepreneur Edouard de Broglie in 2003 as a way to titillate diners through sensory deprivation but also educate them by hiring visually impaired servers to tell their stories over dinner. Now a global interest, you can have a literal blind date at nine branches worldwide, including London, New York, Auckland, and in Melbourne.
  ...
  I feel frustrated. Better food could lift this sense-bending, deeply moving experience into the stratosphere. I tell them so. Last I heard, the menu is under review. I hope it is. This is a porthole into a different universe I think you need to step through. We need more people to step into the darkness and emerge into the light.
10. Fabricant, Florence (2011-12-06). "At Dans Le Noir, Dining in the Dark". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  This gives a whole new meaning to “mystery meat.” At Dans Le Noir, which started in Paris eight years ago and has branches in London, Barcelona and St. Petersburg, Russia, customers dine in a pitch-dark room without knowing the details of the menu. The waiters are all blind or visually impaired.
  ...
  “It becomes a totally surprising experience,” said Edouard de Broglie, the chief executive of the Ethik Investment Group, which owns the restaurants. “After dinner we show them photos of what they ate and the menu, and they can’t believe it. They might get the difference between carrots and peas, but they confuse veal and tuna, white and red wine.”
11. Zittel, Brian E. (2004-10-15). "Meanwhile: A blind date for dinner". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Two friends and I were dining in pitch darkness, or "dans le noir," as the French say - which was also the name of the restaurant. The concept behind this popular new eatery in Paris's 4th Arrondissement is for the seeing to experience what it's like to be blind - all with the help of a very patient blind wait staff.
  We entered Dans le Noir through a lighted bar area, which seemed quite normal except for the lockers where we put our cellphones and anything else that gave off light. We checked out the chalkboard menu and placed our orders before the blind server took us behind a door cloaked in a black curtain.
  This is an opinion piece. The author is Brian E. Zittel. According to https://jmsc.hku.hk/people/brian-zittel/, "Brian E. Zittel has worked for The New York Times and its global edition since 1996."
12. Stoneback, Diane W. (2012-04-17). "At New York's Dans Le Noir, you dine in total darkness. A meal there is both fascinating and disorienting". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  At Dans Le Noir, one of New York City's newest restaurants, I couldn't see the food on my plate, let alone the dining table, my dining companion or the dining room.
  ...
  Before entering the restaurant's dark — really DARK — dining room for my Dans Le Noir dinner, I also had to sign a release, stow belongings that could give off light (including cell phone and camera) and agree to stay in my seat unless I summoned an escort to lead me out of the darkness.
  Dans Le Noir servers who guide guests and deliver their food understand the challenges of eating in the dark. All are visually impaired or blind.
  ...
  ...
  Dans Le Noir (French for eating in the dark) opened Feb. 27, after four months of snarls in the city's permit process. The chain, started in 2004, dishes up similar experiences in Paris, Barcelona, London and St. Petersburg, Russia. Even Prince William and Kate reportedly have dined at its London location. Similar experiences also are available in Warsaw, Geneva and Bangkok.
13. Niemietz, Brian (2011-12-07). "Dining in the dark". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Walking into the bar area of Dans le Noir in London seems no different than strolling into any other restaurant. People mingle, drinks are served and, when table settings are in place, customers are guided to their seats. But that’s when things get shady.
  ...
  For those who can’t, there are panic buttons near tables. Infrared cameras in the dining room provide additional security. And don’t worry if you hear barking. It’s not coming from the kitchen, but from the guide-dog kennel downstairs, where the servers keep their companions.
  Vulnerability is part of the experience, according to Dans le Noir co-founder Edouard de Broglie, who debuted the concept in Paris, the City of Light, in 2004, before opening outposts in London, Barcelona, Moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia.
14. Rodgers, Keeley (2016-06-30). "Keeley Rodgers has an unusual evening at Dans le Noir in London". The Oxford Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  A nice bonus on our first (and long-awaited) visit to Dans le Noir in Clerkenwell, London. Except the catch is, we won’t have a clue what we’re eating until ... we’ve eaten it. That’s the thing about the experience at the capital’s dining in the dark restaurant; it’s full of surprises and added extras. You have to find it first; its inconspicuous façade almost passes you by but once you find the mysterious front door you’re made to feel very welcome.
  It was certainly an evening for firsts. First up, my two guests and I were shown to the lockers where we were instructed to put our belongings including any illuminated watches. I must say it felt quite liberating to “have to” lock our phones away for the evening not to be disturbed. And you can see why any light source isn’t permitted in the restaurant itself. Obviously the whole concept is that you’re dining “in the dark” but I underestimated just how dark it would be; you can’t see your hand in front of your face, literally pitch black.
  And unlike any other restaurant you’re asked what you can’t eat instead of choosing what you want for your dinner. There are three menus; green for vegetarians, red for meat eaters and white for chef’s surprise.
15. Rodríguez, Sandra (2004-12-10). "Rica aventura a ciegas - Un restaurante parisino ofrece a los comensales la posibilidad de ser invidentes por una velada". Mural (in Spanish). Grupo Reforma. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  En la Ciudad Luz, paradójicamente, se abrió un restaurante atendido por meseros ciegos donde se come en la más completa oscuridad.
  Llamado Dans le Noir, está tan de moda que hasta el Primer Ministro de Francia, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, ha cenado ahí.
  La intención principal del propietario, Edouard de Broglie, es enseñarle al visitante cómo es la vida para los invidentes. Sin embargo, también tiene otros propósitos.
  ...
  Cuando una persona llega a Dans le Noir, es recibida por un anfitrión que sí puede ver, quien le asigna un mesero. Este último le pide que coloque una mano en su hombro, y la guía en la oscuridad hasta su mesa.
16. Rayner, Jay (2006-05-28). "Dans Le Noir, London EC1 - restaurant review". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  Dans Le Noir, on London's Clerkenwell Green, is the British branch of a Parisian concept, which invites diners to eat in a blacked-out room. It is literally like no other in this country.
  ...
  As my companion I invited Peter White, the BBC's disability affairs correspondent, on the grounds that to a blind man, it would be just another bloody restaurant. This, it turned out, was not quite the case. As he explained, the blind live in the world of the sighted and therefore have an expectation that those who can see may be relied upon for certain basic practicalities: where a step or doorway might be located in an unfamiliar room, for example. Tonight we would all be blind.
  ...
  As decor is not going to be a big part of this, I'll get it out of the way. At the front is a dimly lit, wood-floored bar area, lined with lockers where you stow personal items. A darkly lit corridor then leads, via two sets of blackout curtains, to the dining room. Just so we are in no doubt, it really is completely black: closed eyes, behind a blindfold in a blacked-out room. While the staff in the bar are sighted, those in the dining room are not. The service we received from them, Peter said, was 'confident but familiar. We can make any length of journey, but the last two feet are always difficult. We lack precision. It was interesting to feel the waitress groping about in the way I might.'
17. Gerard, Jasper (2008-07-11). "London restaurant review: Dans le Noir?". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  I'd give the restaurant marks for employing the visually impaired in a way that utilises their blindness. But receiving the bill, I realise there is little altruistic about the place. If £187 for three is not daylight robbery, that is due only to the lack of daylight. If this joint has any merit, I'm in the dark about it.
18. Simon, Scott; Beardsley, Eleanor (2004-09-04). "Profile: Dining in the dark at "Dans Le Noir?" in Paris". Weekend Edition. NPR. Archived from the original on 2018-08-12. Retrieved 2018-08-12.
  The article notes:
  
  A new restaurant in Paris offers diners more than just a good French meal. Diners at the restaurant "Dans Le Noir?," or `in the dark,' eat and drink in utter darkness. The dining room is pitch black. The wait staff is blind. Without eyesight, patrons taste and smell the food in a whole new way. Eleanor Beardsley reports from Paris.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dans le Noir to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the above reliable sources references show substantial coverage - note Cunard has provided exerpts from the articles not the whole articles. Particularly convincing are dedicated independent articles in the New York Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph as well as permanent book sources. Also, independent restaurant reviews in reliable sources count for WP:CORPDEPTH as per a discussion about a month or two ago. The article can now be seen to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 12 August 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. Consensus is that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JPEGMAFIA

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

Subject appears to fail MUSICBIO. Strikerforce^Talk 16:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, the nominator did not describe WHY he/she thinks the rapper fails WP:MUSICBIO. Second, you can clearly see that the article has several references (though note that a few are repeats) to in-depth articles in reliable publications like Pitchfork, Stereogum, and The Fader, among others. If the nominator thinks those are not enough for at least a stub article, more explanation is needed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject meets item 1 of MUSICBIO, but fails the rest. The first ten pages or so of a Google search are dominated by links to announcements about performances by the subject and where to buy their works. Strikerforce^Talk 19:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing near the top of a Google search is an indication of the popularity of the site, not the quality of its content nor the notability of the person described. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's take that argument this way and say that a reliable source would also, it stands to reason, be highly regarded in terms of "popularity of the site" and be near the top of a Google search, wouldn't you think? Strikerforce^Talk 19:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't think that. Do you have proof that being reliable makes a site rise up the ranks in Google's mysterious algorithm? But don't even bother because nowhere in the Wikipedia notability requirements can I find any statement that a subject is non-notable because reliable sites don't appear in a given place in Google search results. Besides, we have gotten pretty far away from my vote, for which I actually read some of the sources already cited in the article without being distracted by where they appeared in a list of Google junk. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnycraig888 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not only are the sources on the article clearly reliable (and non-trivial), the first page or two of Google results alone turns up things like substantive articles from Vice[5] and the L.A. Times[6] (neither of these references are currently in the article; I may do that later). Could the nominator explain why this is not enough for notability? Gilded Snail (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the previous comment. In addition, this artist has received coverage from reviewers like Pitchfork[7] which cater to an international audience. Vitomontreal (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable. When searching for information on this artist I'd obviously want to come to Wikipedia first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.228.87 (talk) 18:01, 10 August 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)} 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unified.js

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

Cannot see that this topic is either notable or verifiable. It has been unsourced since 2015, with the only external link seemingly unrelated.. Even non-notable references I could find point to an alternative project with the same name. Greenman (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage. Some hits in Scholar papers turned out to be just this script being used in some source code. Hardly significant coverage. Both DEL7 and DEL8, as the nom said. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random technical data about a non-notable piece of JavaScript from 2015 is definitely not suited for an encyclopedia. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:03, 7 August 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) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave

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

Mostly unsourced prose. Most significant impact seems to be the 2006–08 Southeastern United States drought, which has its own article. Wearing sunglasses, sunscreen, and a wide brimmed hat weren't bad ideas either. Right. Summer is hot. Who knew? Fails WP:NEVENT. — JFG ^talk 20:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full AfD list of non-notable heat waves:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1906 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1955 United Kingdom heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983 British Isles heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 United Kingdom heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1995 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 European heat wave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave: Y Kept
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Western North American heat wave (2nd nomination): N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Pacific Northwest heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2012 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Great Britain and Ireland heat wave: No consensus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Southwestern United States heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 2014 southeastern Australia heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 South-Eastern Australian heatwave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Swedish heat wave: Y Kept; should be expanded and renamed 2014 Scandinavian heat wave
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 American Northeast heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 North American heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Southern Europe heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2018 United Kingdom heat wave: N Deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Eastern Canada heat wave: Merged
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 North American heat wave: No consensus

Thanks for participating. — JFG ^talk 11:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC) — Last updated 19:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep.. Article says this is was a continuation of the 2007 Western North American heat wave, but that article definitely shouldn't survive AfD. This page has a slightly stronger case, but it doesn't really seem to immediately pass the bar for what's really needed for heatwave notability (e.g. large numbers of dead, widespread blackouts, etc.) since regular heat waves break records in X city all the time and often kill a handful of sick and elderly. The only part of the article that isn't fluff is the mention of the number of dead. Looking at that source closer, it's preliminary NOAA data in a single sentence in addition to saying it was on track to being on of the top 20 warmest Augusts in the US.

That seemed a little underwhelming, so after a little searching, I do find journal articles like this mentioning Virginia and Alabama, but that's a primary journal article. If there was a really good in-depth secondary source I'd be a solid keep on this one. For now, I'm just going to chop some superfluous stuff out of the article, but considering I couldn't find good in-depth sources after a bit of searching, I'm fine with a redirect or merge too unless something new comes up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 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?} 13:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I recall this heat wave - it was only 11 years ago. Lots of older people died from heat stroke in Philadelphia and other cities. I-90 melted in Albany, New York. There must be better sourcing available. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found plenty of reliable sources dating across 10 years' time; therefore it's not merely a one-time news event. I added cites and links, and made several corrections. This was difficult to find so I don't blame the nominator for not making a reasonable search. As I science teacher, I know a few Internet search tricks about looking for meteorological data. I request this be kept due to meeting the Heymann standard. I'm still working on it. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I found some New York Times articles about this heat wave behind a paywall. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearian plus experienced severe heat living north of New York City. Redditaddict_6_9 04:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced now. The drought is a related multi-year event where this is a shorter-term event, both can stand on their own. StrayBolt (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject's notability and encyclopaedic interest is now adequately supported by sources. The text itself was a mess, with most weasels I ever encountered inside a Wikipedia article, the language close to pidgin, and the hyperbole rampant. Some clean up was attempted. It might be passable now. -The Gnome (talk) 14:23, 15 August 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)} 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Entri

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

Fails WP:NCORP.All news-coverage are basically a reprint of their official-speaks and lacks intellectual independency.....Creator blocked for UPE..... ∯WBG^converse 13:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOAPBOX, page is here to promote a non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP. Fit India 14:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too promotional in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A typical declined AFC advertisement ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:37, 14 August 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. This was clearly heading for deletion anyway, but we don't need to wait any longer, as the creator of the article and only person to argue against deletion here has now requested deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of TV programs using outside broadcast (1950-90)

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

This list is entirely unsourced, and it is unclear that it is a significant feature of the programs listed that they used outside broadcast techniques (essentially outdoor video-tape recording) rather than film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Although I don't see the harm in having this around, it quite obviously falls under WP:LISTCRUFT. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, irrelevant that a couple of episodes/or a scene of a tv program was broadcast out of studio, see essay on listcruft. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and as failing WP:LISTN. (FWIW, without even trying I can think of six major OBs, one of them recurring, which are missing from the list.) Narky Blert (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and rather unreliable sourcing. Ajf773 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note:I have seen plenty of harsh statements in the case of deleting my article for the reasons of lack of information. I have done extensive research for the past several months, checking what programs used OB filming and when these particular shows/ programs used OB, now their seem to be a conflict of interest how I should display them. Currently I mark them as All Episodes, the Series' numbers, Most Episodes', 'Some Episodes and 'Some OB inserts', they may seem ambiguous but I had to leave it like this due to a number of reasons. For example with some long running shows like EastEnders, The Sky at Night, Blue Peter and Coronation Street it is hard to pin down when exactly episodes used OB exteriors due to the large amount of episodes produced which sometimes stretch off into the thousands, and quite often due to the lack of archive information or records on the internet, I have been prevented from adding more details. This is why I have left those sections with only a summary of information, rather than include an extensive list of details that would be (a) be too much information for the reader to take in and (b) prone to mistakes due to lack of reliable information from existing sources. With this article I have been trying to show an accurate record of the various shows in the UK that have used OB up until 1990 when it became more wide-spread in usage among TV programs in this country. I also wanted to show the reader how increasingly TV programs utilised OB filming, despite the prevalence of shooting exteriors on film at the time.Goldmic90 (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Goldmic90: It is clear you have deeply researched this topic, and put a great deal of effort into this list. Unfortunately, it is often the case at Wikipedia that the minutiae that some users find fascinating are not really deemed to be generally encyclopedic content. The term ListCruft refers to such lists: possibly very interesting to a very narrow group of users, but not useful in a general encyclopedia. You might consider publishing your work on Wikia which is a website specifically dedicated to providing the sort of fan-specific information you've provided here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @WikiDan61: I'm disappointed it has come to this, to be frank Wikipedia seems to be a place where certain subjects of interest are prevented, even if it's of technical areas like Outside Broadcast filming, whilst other niche subject matters are allowed, despite the small audience it would attract. It is far too overly regimented for it's own sake, and I won't be publishing new articles on Wikipedia any time soon.

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)} 20:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rayan Tarraf

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

Promotional, fails WP:BIO. Creator DubaiScripter has made no edits outside this topic. MER-C 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure vanity promo page by non notable marketeer Lyndaship (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything in a quick spin around the Google. The self-promotional nature of the piece is pretty apparent. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are entirely inadequate. My BEFORE fails to find much to redeem them. Fails ANYBIO and GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:05, 14 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvy Marãe'ỹ

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

Not notable, fails WP:ORG. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding Spanish article es:Fundación_Yvy_Marãe’ỹ has 8 references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself means nothing. 1) standards on other language wikis are different. 2) notability needs to be proven here on en.wp, not es.wp. 3) are these references even significant coverage, as per WP:ORG? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Foundation is thriving. It has just held a great international seminar. Will post references soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.122.62.119 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference just added, please look.

The 3 refs utterly fail WP:ORGDEPTH. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait. Another reference added, related to a linguistic cooperation with the Senate of Paraguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.122.62.119 (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The foundation appears to be notable and verifiable. I found six news stories and three scholarly works about the foundation (plus additional pieces about the Guaraní phrase and language activism in Paraguay) just by clicking the 'news' and 'scholar' buttons in the AfD header. Most are written in Spanish. The news stories are dated January-July 2018; the scholarlies 2016-2018. I'm not copying URLs here, since I assume anyone interested can click the same links I did. Cnilep (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just written a reference to the Foundation's work in the IT field. --Fadesga (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gurnani Language--I fail to find any source (or a combination thereof) that manages to make the subject convincingly pass our rigorous inclusion guidelines.Hand-waving to a Google-search hardly helps.The sources are remotely local (trivial reporting on launch of a new website et al) or reporting on a tangential aspect about the broader locus of Gurnani Language.∯WBG^converse 11:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(I already !voted last week.) The foundation has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. These two articles from a Paraguayan news outlet discuss the foundation in the context of recently passed language legislation: "Fomentarán el idioma guaraní en el Senado"; "Senado implementa traducción de documentos al guaraní". Another news outlet has information on a seminar organized by the foundation: "Se inició el Tercer Seminario internacional sobre Guaraní". These three scholarly articles each discuss the foundation in the context of Paraguay's language policies. "Guarani ñe’ẽ rape’apo: Pojoapy Guarani ñe’ẽ ko’ẽ pyahurã"; "Paraguai: una nació pluricultural amb dues llengües oficials"; "La ley de lenguas en el Paraguay: ¿un paso decisivo en la oficialización de factodel guaraní?". In addition, this scholarly article (PDF) and these two opinion / media pieces by foundation members can help create an article without the need for original research, though their content needs to be verified through independent sources such as those I've listed above. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, as some !votes fail to provide adequate justifications, leading to a fairly split division of justified views at this point
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added and those found by Cnilep are sufficient to demonstrate that the organisation is valid and notable and should satisfy WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:38, 14 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Computerized Coloring Books

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSOFT Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a hasty decision to promote deletion almost immediately after its creation. Has adequate notability from reliable sources including newspapers and magazines. More sources would be fine. Shall look for an entry in Capstone or IntraCorp's website. Deltasim (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine to me. It has a significant amount of coverage from reliable sources. And it's a title that was produced by a major publisher (at least, one that was major at the time it was released) as an official tie-in to a series of very famous movies. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:07, 7 August 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no actual input regarding the album's notability or lack thereof in the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D Fun Pak

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. » Shadowowl | talk 21:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No reason given by nominator for why the article fails WP:NALBUM. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 26 July 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?} 13:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the band has an article to which this could be merged and redirected. No comment on notability at this time. James500 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close due to insufficient reasoning from the nominator. If anyone else thinks the album is non-notable, they can start a new AfD and do it correctly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IGNORE ABOVE VOTE let consensus decide, not your personal opinion. » Shadowowl | talk 20:09, 8 August 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)} 20:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of D-Box motion-enhanced theatrical films

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOG/WP:PROMO. Based solely on press releases. Kleuske (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be an indiscriminate catalogue of movies of a certain accreditation. Sourcing seems to end after just a few entries. Ajf773 (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be thinly veiled WP:PROMOTIONAL with a lack of adequate sources. Chetsford (talk) 19:04, 14 August 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. Consensus at this time is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nilton Terroso

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without meaningfully addressing the concern. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep A search on portuguese football newspapers (A Bola, Record, O Jogo) yields several results (like [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]) which make him easily pass our notability guidelines. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many of those articles may only be routine coverage of him (like the articles announcing him as a new manager). SportingFlyer talk 10:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now passes GNG. Giant Snowman 19:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I am going out on a limb here, but I think he can easily pass WP:GNG if the article was cleaned up. I've just read through 10 different articles on him regarding his management career, but what is confusing is some of them say he a former professional footballer who played in Portugal, I can't find any evidence online but is it possible he could also pass WP:NFOOTBALL? Govvy (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. I believe being a former Cardiff City manager makes him pass WP:NFOOTBALL. ( See also [16] in the South Wales Echo) Regards, Comte0 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being manager at Cardiff City would be sufficient for WP:NFOOTBALL, but he wasn't manager there. He was manager of Cardiff's under-21 team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also he may have been professional, but it doesn't appear he played in any fully pro leagues. SportingFlyer talk 04:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am more than happy with the article now that Quite A Character has helped clean it up, I will easily say the article now passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given split views and an amended article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extensive media coverage on his Cardiff City spell (in both Portuguese and English language), but don't know if that's enough to grant article. However, surely his work in the LigaPro (Portuguese second division, professional level) does? --Quite A Character (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG through fails WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about football manager which satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:09, 9 August 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. Consensus is that WP:BLP is appropriate here and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can be honoured; however this means, obviously, that all coverage of Thorburn, positive and negative, will be removed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Thorburn

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

I am neutral. Wildetees (talk · contribs · count) started the nomination but did not create this page. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildetees (talk · contribs · count) made the following edit summary in this diff: "The page Sandy Thorburn has been used by malicious editors to disparage my name and to attempt to malign me over a period of many months. I would humbly request that it be removed to avoid this, and allow me to live my life quietly."

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He was certainly convicted. Note that he had a WP page years before he was arrested. The page was never brought to AfD in the years before the arrest. If it had been, it is not clear whether he would have scrapped past, his notability lay in producing musicals at the Thousand Islands Playhouse, but after running some searches, I doubt it. He seems rather full of himself and, looking at the edit record on his page, he appears to have created and maintained it himself - or someone very close to him did. We could, in other words, delete this one if we choose.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. While I do not see other editors disparaging the BLP, there was a BLP issue in one edit. As for the merits of the subject as an article - it is weakish or borderline on all counts. I don't see how he passes PROF. He does seem to be a director of some note, however he doesn't seem to rise up to the bar set in WP:DIRECTOR. It does not seem to be a GNG pass. The crime itself (which involved teens - seems however that in Canadian law these are treated the same as children) has some national level coverage - but is borderline in terms of notability. I could be swayed to flip my !vote - this is a close call, and there are a number of possible avenues of notability here (the director and crime angle being the obvious ones).Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The profile appeared to meet WP:BIO previous to his child pornography events. Ifnord (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO.It is combination of his being a composer , a director ,teaching in leading Canadian Universities including University of Waterloo ,Lakehead University ,University of Toronto amongst others and being convicted adequate coverage about the subject to pass WP:GNG.Note the article was created in 2006 way before the conviction and see no BLP violation as the subject has been convicted and passes WP:WELLKNOWN. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E, a minor composer and offender, with most coverage concerning his crime, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, potentially including further discussion on whether notability was established prior to crime/event notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very clearly violative of WP:BLP, intended primarily to do harm as the person is not otherwise "notable." Collect (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete, claim to notability before the crime was marginal, at best, and was clearly self PROMO that would probably have been deleted if it has come to AfD back then. crime itself got some coverage, but not much, and there has been no policy impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 13 August 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton A. Robertson

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of meager name checks, and the primary source in the article does not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quick search of English-language academic sources finds that subject's involvement with Japan is discussed by LDS historian Reid L. Neilson in his UNC religious studies dissertation [17] and the resulting University of Utah Press book [18], in Britsch's BYU Studies article on the closing of the Japan mission [19], and in Takagi's Journal of Mormon History article on the LDS in postwar Japan [20]. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 7 August 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. Consensus is that while the quality of the article is lacking, that is not a reason to delete it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithms (journal)

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

There are really no independent sources on this journal; plus, the company that publishes it, MDPI, has come under fire as a publisher of predatory journals (see this). Thus, the information about being "peer-reviewed" is almost certainly false, and demonstrates the unreliability of this article. Because of this, it should be deleted under our general notability criteria and our verifiability policy. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think our unsubstantiated opinions about the quality of review at this journal are worth much as a reason for deletion. (In my own case, I know nothing about its standards for peer review, but I am troubled by the fact that, although it occasionally publishes work by reputable researchers, the vast majority of the papers published in this journal are not on what I recognize as the design and analysis of algorithms.) But as the only real notability guideline for journal notability is WP:GNG (WP:NJournals is suggestive but not definitive), and no in-depth independently published sources are evident, we have no basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 04:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As our article on MDPI documents, it was indeed listed by Beall as a predatory publisher, but then removed from his list (long before he was forced to close that down). In addition, the journal is listed in Scopus, which we generally accept as evidence of notability in these discussions. As that's the only claim to fame, however, I only !vote "weak keep". --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As http://www.mdpi.com/search?q=&journal=algorithms&sort=article_citedby&page_count=50 shows, quite a number of widely cited papers have appeared in this journal. Therefore quite a number of readers might be interested to look up what kind of journal this is. -- Nsda (talk) 08:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsda: But they can just go to the journal's website. Also, how can we say what kind of journal it is when we don't have independent verification? RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 17:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indexed in Scopus and both zbMATH and MathSciNet, and it's reasonably cited so that passes WP:NJOURNALS. MDPI is certainly a questionable publisher, but they're no OMICS Publishing Group. All in all, we're better off with this article than without. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. scope_creep (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the other keeps, Algorithms is adequately cited, meets WP:NJournals and meets WP:GNG (even if not with flying colors). JC7V-constructive zone 21:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: How does it meet GNG? I can't find any significant coverage, a requirement of it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 22:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:}, From reading the WP:GNG and the other discussions I realized that it is a keep because of the indexing in Scopus (which meets 1B in WP:NJournals) and because of MathsciNet indexing plus searching in Google Scholar made me realize the article belongs here.JC7V-constructive zone 01:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: Are you arguing from policy (or guidelines)? Because NJOURNALS isn't policy, and since this doesn't meet GNG, which is a guideline, it thus violates WP:V. We can verify that it exists, but that doesn't matter; we need more than that to make it remotely useful as an encyclopedia article. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 01:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz:}, well guidelines are there for a reason, to guide us to the correct decision which it did for me and a few of the other supports above. As for independant coverage, I found this, which seems to show that the Algorithms Journal's reliablity problems has had a signficant effect on the academic world. Some pseudo science journals can also have articles if they get enough significant coverage (per WP:NJournal). This kind of reliablity issues for this journal seems like it has and will continue to get that kind of coverage.Also see this So if you combine it all it passes. JC7V-constructive zone 02:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JC7V7DC5768: The two articles you linked don't mention the journal once. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 02:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are multiple references quoted, but they don't seem to do anything other than prove existence, and the ones mooted by JC7V7DC5768 don't seem to cover it at all. I can't see sheer listing at Scopus being anywhere near sufficient, and if GNG is the primary notability grounds here, then standard levels of sourcing quality is required, and it isn't met. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a completely different rationale than that given in the original deletion request. I could agree with you if we did a similar purge on all journal articles, regardless of what we guess about the quality of the journal, basing deletion decisions solely on your criterion. -- Nsda (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsda:, firstly there is nothing preventing later editors providing additional deletion rationales to that originally offered. Secondly, your claim is a rather dramatic rebuttal of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. NJOURNAL is an essay, and I'm none too sure about the suitability of using it rather than purely than WP:GNG (which definitely sets out firmer Sig Cov/reliable source requirements than are met in this article/discussion). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the references, taken together, amount to just enough information for a directory listing -- there is no content in any of them that might be called "encyclopedic", and there seems to be little reason to believe that other, better sources exist. --JBL (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not, and has never been, a directory listing in the sense of WP:NOTDIR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The least squishy criterion that I've seen invoked in academic-journal deletion discussions is "listing in selective databases". Being indexed in Scopus is enough to carry this one over the line. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd prefer to see this deleted based on the paucity of sourcing, however, by my reading of the standards of NJOURNAL (the journal being indexed in Scopus) I am, regrettably, compelled to !vote Keep. Though, if there's a question about the veracity or - indeed - existence of its peer review process I feel like we can probably edit that away. Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it seems to pass the notability guideline for journals. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:31, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per previous two comments. The article most definitely needs more information added to it, but it still appears to be notable. Redditaddict_6_9 05:01, 15 August 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 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) WP:A7 WP:A11. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Largemouth bass fishing in Namibia

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge to largemouth bass which isn't all that long and could absorb this short article. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reconsideration I would go for deletion based on arguments below. Mangoe (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Namibia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing useful to merge, and I don't see this as a useful redirect either. The only truly specific information to the article is locations where they are caught, and that's not WP:DUE in fish articles at that level of detail. In general, you'll see countries and maybe particular regions added, but that would basically need to be done from scratch at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:44, 11 August 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) 12:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assim al-Hakeem

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines SWL36 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, Subject does not meet notability guidelines WP:N. There is not a reliable source in this article WP:RS, most of the sources used are youtube/twitter/the subjects own website. Some of the independent sources are PeaceTV and StudentRights.org. These are not reliable sources as per the above guideline and a google and google news search turn up a handful of reliable sources ^[1] ^[2] that mention him but these mentions are trivial. In sources other than the Moroccan one the mentions of him are one sentence or less and often occur in opinion and analysis pieces. These mentions do not arise to the level of "significant coverage" that is required to achieve notability. The main claim he has to notability are that he was disallowed to speak at a small university, an event only noted by the above source and blogs as a standalone occurance. The incident was mentioned as part of a (as far as I can tell) RS discussing deplatforiming "hate speakers" ^[3] but again, he was mentioned as one of several. Trying to keep an article like this would result in a stub backed by the above sources that amounts to "al-hakeem is a cleric who has said bitcoin and selfies are haram. He was uninvited from speaking at a university.". This falls short of something that should be included in an encyclopedia. SWL36 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t comment on notability, but I did find a reputable source (George Washington University) with an entry that covers the topic: https://scholarspace.library.gwu.edu/downloads/dv13zt32q. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create an archive or give an alternative version of that source? Chrome seems to think that the GWU website is compromised. SWL36 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem on other browsers. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I cannot archive that source on both the Wayback Machine and Archive.is. However, you should be able to override the warning by clicking a button along the lines of “Detailed”/“Advanced”. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a different website that hosts the memo. While it certainly is an interesting read (done by an associate director of the U of C Middle East studies department) and is an in-depth analysis on al-Hakeem and his ideology, I'm not sure it qualifies as a RS as it is a memo and not peer reviewed.

First, the article is an analysis on mostly primary sources, al-Hakeems social media postings, with some secondary sources to give context on his beliefs. It does not appear to be a journal article and it is mentioned on the website that it was drafted at a workshop. I think that this is functionally equivalent to an opinion piece. One that is written by an expert for sure, but I don't think this analysis is enough to save this article. However, it is a much better source than what the currently filled with, though that isn't saying much. SWL36 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject appears to fall below the relevant notability guidelines. There is some material written about him on blogs and discussion forums, as well as in self-published books lacking editorial oversight and Wikipedia mirrors. None of these are reliable sources. I don't see this as being sufficient per WP:GNG. MontyKind (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement but no question that the subject has been covered in multiple mainstream media sources on multiple occasions and therefore meets notability guidelines. Closer should note that nominator appears to have selectively canvassed editors about this AfD in breach of WP:CANVAS. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty absurd insult considering that I notified the four most active editors in the 6 months for this article: Edward321 and MontyKind have issues with this article and Batreeq and Samtheman9934 were major recent contributors to it. Receiving a warning like this from an uninvolved editor who is involved in a separate dispute with me is interesting, to say the least. SWL36 (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bastun's reasons. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when you take away the dozens of self published sources, affiliated sources, social media and blogs there is almost nothing to show notability. This is one of the worst cases of refbombing I've seen for a while. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is poorly sourced promotional verbiage hoping to make it into Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for him in the two largest English language papers in Jeddah, and found nothing. Current sourcing is insufficient - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:11, 15 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Der Zor (song)

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

Not notable. Harut111 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Harut111 (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.Harut111 (talk) 10:20, 7 August 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 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At most, the contents of this article could be added either to the Sirusho article, or the Deir ez-Zor Camps article as a "in culture" section. Otherwise: definitely not independently notable. Gilded Snail (talk) 23:05, 7 August 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holman Fenwick Willan

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

No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Plenty of routine coverage, but lacking the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would be needed to meet corporate notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking vote for deletion per sources identified below. Looks like searching for more configurations of the corporate name would have helped. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. routine listing of non-notable firm. NOTDIRECTORY is the applicable policy DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 11:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jones, Ashby (2008-12-10). "Pirate Attacks Keep Law Firm Buzzing". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Among the most prominent is London maritime firm Holman Fenwick Willan. Partner Toby Stephens says lawyers at the firm have been awakened "at all hours" by ship owners calling the firm's 24-hour hot line. "They're often quite panicked, and understandably so," he says.
  Over the past three months, the rise in piracy has kept about a half-dozen lawyers at Holman Fenwick working nearly full-time for clients with potentially dozens of lives and tens of millions of dollars at stake in hijackings. To some degree, the work has helped Holman Fenwick offset other maritime practices hurt by the global economic slowdown.
  ...
  Business in Holman Fenwick's casualty practice, usually dealing with shipping collisions, and its ship-financing practice have slipped as the world economy has slowed.
  ...
  Piracy expertise at Holman Fenwick, which was founded in 1883, grew out of the firm's history representing clients following shipwrecks and collisions. The firm represented the salvage companies that cleaned up after the oil tanker Prestige broke up off the coast of Spain in 2002. The firm also represents the owners and insurers of the MSC Napoli, a container ship severely damaged in an English Channel storm last year. In addition to about 290 lawyers, the firm employs about 30 nonlawyer experts, such as former ship captains, marine engineers and naval architects.
  Holman Fenwick also assists clients in retaining private security consultants -- many of whom are former special-forces personnel -- to negotiate with the hijackers.
2. Oakes, John (1986). "Shipping law—an inside view". Seatrade. Vol. 16. Seatrade Publications.
  The publication notes:
  
  In the first of an occasional series looking at different working environments, John Oakes spent some time with Holman, Fenwick and Willan Shipping law — an inside view.
  The article notes:
  The two are inextricably linked. For Holman Fenwick, salvage and admiralty work generally are just part of a whole range of snipping services. Established in 1883, when Frank Holman first set up practice in London, the firm assumed its present name in 1915. And right from the early days, fuelled by strong connections with the West of England P&I Club, which the Holman family set up around 1875 and was in the same building until quite recently, shipping played the predominant role in the firm's business.
  In the early stages expansion was fairly gradual—by 1939, there were still only 28 partners and staff—but from 1950 onwards, Holman Fenwick grew quite rapidly. Today it employs some 250 people in five offices around the world. Its work is divided into five main departments—admiralty, commercial, company and ship finance, personal injury and property and tax planning. The West of England is still a major client.
  Admirality work, or the 'wet' side, as it is known at Holman's, is probably still the most glamorous side of the firm's business, though in terms of numbers employed , it takes second place to the commercial side. And one factor that sets…
  ...
  After 100 years in the business, Holman's has established itself as one of the top three firms in London. Recent figures from Charter Party International showed that of charterparty litigation generally, Holman's accounted for 35% of the 60- odd cases handled in 1984 (Seatrade, December). Senior partner Christopher Cohen acknowledges that the competition is hotting up but argues that Holman's is doing its best to meet it. 'We are trying to broaden our base and will continue to do so,' he told Seatrade. That means taking on and expanding new areas of work, such as reinsurance and other fields of international trade, and making sure that the firm is well represented internationally, with its four overseas offices in Paris, Jersey, Hong Kong and now Japan.
3. Merritt, Chris (2011-09-16). "Perth practice part of firm's global marketv". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  AFTER officially opening its Perth office, global firm Holman Fenwick Willan has made it clear its new practice is primarily part of the global market.
  ...
  HFW, founded in London in 1883, is a unitary partnership with 130 partners and more than 280 lawyers.
  It has offices in China, Singapore, Britain, France, Belgium, the UAE, Switzerland and Greece as well as a co-operative arrangement with two firms in Saudi Arabia.
4. Daughenbaugh, Mia; Bell, David (2014-06-16). "UK Country Report: Industry focus distinguishes award-winning law firm in Asia". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  As more of the world's trade gravitates toward Asia, globally competitive Asian companies trust leading international law firm Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW) to meet their specific business requirements.
  ...
  More than half of HFW's revenue stems from its 12 offices outside Britain, with much of this business coming from operations in Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore. Having substantial representation in key industries, the firm stands out with its capabilities in aerospace, commodities, shipping, insurance, mining, logistics, power and construction. HFW assists Asian companies across these industries with their international trade through services spanning advisory, contract formation, finance, contentious practice and dispute resolution.
  ...
  It was one of the first international law firms to open an office in Hong Kong in 1978. In addition to its Hong Kong office, which was its second and remains its largest international office outside of London, HFW established its presence in Singapore in 1991.
5. Quinn, Ben (2009-04-15). "Battling Somali pirates: Maritime businesses weigh in". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Here's where companies such as Holman Fenwick Willan, which has been representing clients in shipwrecks and collisions since it was founded in 1883, come in.
  One of the most prominent legal firms, its staff operate around the clock in response to calls to an emergency hotline.
  "It's a 24-hour business, because, as you can imagine, there are underwriters here in London but then we have negotiators out in the Middle East and we have to correspond with them," says lawyer and partner Toby Stephens. The firm has had approximately 30 cases involving piracy since July last year; currently, it is handling more than four involving vessels still being held.
6. Rozner, Steven; Galloway, Colin (1998). China's Top 200: a Guide to the World's Top Advisors on Investing and Doing Business in the PRC. Hong Kong: Asia Law & Practice. p. 63. ISBN 9789629360207. OCLC 39846980. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The Google Books snippets view notes:
  
  WILLAN. Holman, Fenwick & Willan was founded in London in 1883 getting its present name in 1915 and is now one of the world's foremost litigation firms, well known for its expertise in shipping, international trade, insurance, reinsurance and international commerce.
7. Fennell, Edward (2017-07-27). "Flight turbulence". The Times. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  After 13 years at Norton Rose Fulbright he is becoming the director of business development and marketing at HFW. So what’s that, then? Sadly, Holman Fenwick Willan has been seduced by the idea that three letters can substitute for a distinguished history and distinctive identity.
  What worked for the BBC and IBM won’t necessarily work for firms who junk their past and go for anonymous acronyms. Names, not initials, carry character.
8. Kinder, Tabby (2016-04-04). "Simmons and Holman Fenwick named in 'Panama Papers' leak". The Lawyer. Archived from the original on 2018-07-29. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
  The article notes:
  
  Simmons & Simmons and Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW) are among a number of international law firms named in the Panama Papers document leak.
  ...
  Meanwhile HFW has been named as an adviser to UAE president, Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, one of the world’s wealthiest men. The firm is understood to have advised the political figure on his dealings in the UK.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Holman Fenwick Willan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing identified by Cunard. I started putting some of it in. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow evaluation of newly posted sources. Courtesy ping existing commenter DGG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sourcing discovered by Cunard to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + poorly written article with little info. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 05:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage shown demonstrated by Cunard, and sources demonstrate the entity is considered one of the foremost experts on maritime law, perhaps the preeminent one. That the article currently does not reflect this does not prove the subject is non-notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:37, 14 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E4 Entertainment

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

Fails our rigorous notability guidelines by a mile or so.UPE Spam.It has released films which have been reviewed, that's un-doubtable but there's not an iota of sourcing in reliable-media-sources about the production-house or it's business transactions, in itself. ∯WBG^converse 08:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, agree with nom. Notability is not inherited and the coverage is about the productions and not the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:16, 12 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. V. Sarathi

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE by a mile.Trivial name-mentions in news-sources, as producer of films.Nothing more, nothing less.Promotional interviews in Malayali-gossip-magazines are located. ∯WBG^converse 08:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is too brief and too promotional.TH1980 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 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. Enigma^msg 13:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Renfrew

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

Non notable ICW wrestler. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:43, 14 August 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. Enigma^msg 01:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st Central

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

Can't find any coverage of this company outside the few refs given (which I'm assuming are legitimate independent trade publications and not just press release-publishing sites? Can anyone confirm this?). I'm not convinced the refs meet the bar of "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." The article has been tagged as questionable notability for 3.5 years, so perhaps its time for a discussion. Happy to hear the thoughts of others. Ajpolino (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a car insurance provider, originally created by a WP:SPA and later developed by others with the company name in their account names. The coverage provided and found through searches is a mixture of routine announcements and research releases, as would be expected for a firm which has been reasonably successful in establishing itself in its field, but nothing to suggest encyclopaedic notability. Previous versions of the article included an Ownership section summarising its associated underlying offshore firms[21], but none of these appear notable either. Nor do the listed industry awards bring inherent notability. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:12, 12 August 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. Enigma^msg 01:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Welsh

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

promotional biography--no particular distinction as a businessperson, or a chairperson of a charity with vague claims for the improtance of her role. , " The language used is not encyclopedic -- "tremendously challenging role ". "unprecedent" DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is neither significant nor of high quality. This seems to be a run of th mill charitable chairperson. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 8 August 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. Enigma^msg 01:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Landry M. Simmons, Jr.

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

essentially a campaign advertisement. If he's elected Mayor, he will be notable--but his present position is not notable. The routine news reports on police activity don't show his individual notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean for this to be a campaign advertisement. I tried to find as much as I could. I had found another source referencing the officer shooting and for the life of me, I cannot find it again. JJA800 (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is trying to run in a race in 2021. I really don't see him being notable before a possible win in that year, but clearly not right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 02:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Emily Khine (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here passes WP:NPOL — people get articles for winning election to and thereby holding notable political offices, not just for being candidates — and the sourcing is not nearly good enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. If he wins the election in 2021, then the article will be recreatable because his notability equation will have changed — but nothing stated or sourced here is enough to already get him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to redirecting to Coast to Coast AM with a merge of appropriate size. Bishonen | talk 07:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Phil

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

Overly promotional pseudo-biography of a fictional character whose gimmick is apparently making people think he's a real person. As it is, the article is slanted toward the latter. Many sources are simply documenting appearances on Coast to Coast AM, with most all of them restricted to WP:SENSATIONALized, tabloid-ish, or "news of the weird" departments that play at being "in on the joke" rather than covering the subject in a serious or objective manner.

For example there is no actual background info available on the subject, e.g. education, early career, etc. from which to construct an objective biography of a person. It's as if the person didn't exist before their first publicity in 2010. Neither is there any critique of the subject's outlandish fringe claims available from any source.

If UFO Phil were a real person, we'd have to treat the article as a WP:FRINGEBLP, which advises that "Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner". If UFO Phil is a character being portrayed by an actor or performance artist, we'd want WP:RS verifying that fact, and we'd want to structure the article according to MOS:FICT, which specifies that "Characters should not be presented as if they are real persons".

Wikipedia shouldn't be inadvertently complicit in perpetuating Kayfabe around a subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 02:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 1srt AfD closed in 2008 as "delete" the 2nd in 2009 as "keep."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual is clearly using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, and no appropriate reliable sources on this topic appear to be available. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article currently looks extremely promotional and unclear and may qualify for WP:TNT, but notability seems to be available, and better then the previous nomination which ended in keep. I am not entirely convinced either way, but keeping in mind WP:Deletion is not cleanup and the recommendations in WP:TNT, it may be better to to rv to a old revision without the promotional content and start again from there.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gave WP:TNT consideration before filing this AfD. Even if we were to rv to an older version such as this one, we still have no reliable source that takes the subject seriously enough to verify details of UFO Phil as an actual person (or a vice versa, as a comedic character portrayed by an actor). A better solution would be delete and redirect to Coast to Coast AM where a small para on the individual would be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I agree. I've not been able to find any WP:RS to confirm either way. A redirect with curated merge is likely the best option.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The previous nomination ended up in a keep at a time when Wikipedia was working out some issues with regards to biographies that it has largely resolved in favor of erring on the side of caution rather than radical inclusion. To that end, I would argue that this is a biography rather than a character (though I acknowledge that the line is fine here), but there is clearly no room for an article about the actor playing this character. Moreover, the "character" fails our inclusion criteria as well. I want it to be clear that although sources can be found which mention this person/character, there are no in-depth biographical or analytical sources which have noticed him or his schtick. If he becomes famous enough to be noticed by mainstream media or commented upon by independent sources, then we can think about re-creation. jps (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I am seeing a lot of local news coverage, enough to just pass.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow - interesting character and interesting discussion about AfD. I think there is plenty about this character, but nothing about the person. If this is a comedian who has played many characters or at least has some kind of "poe like" bigger agenda I would like to read that bio. In the meantime this is just a promotional article about a non-notable (but colorful and amusing) character. I'm not seeing how this could be reverted back to a time when there was no promotional content, as it is all promotion. I would add that if much more is written about the real person, his motivation and goals, possibly about what he learned about society and the public's ability to believe without direct evidence, THAT might be really interesting, a look into human behavior. And if so then I think we might revisit this page, but not for UFO Phil, but for Phil Hill (if that is his real name). And the UFO Phil would be one part of that story. For now, this page is only promotion and should not exist, except maybe as a mention on other pages such as Coast to Coast as suggested.Sgerbic (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page as it exists right now is being used solely for promotion. Also, it does not appear that many non-promotional reliable sources exist. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Most of the hits that come up when I run news searches on "UFO Phil" are articles about a singer with the band "UFO, Phil," Mogg. Beyond that, the best I can find is this echo in a regional daily of a brief article from a local paper Cyber star “UFO Phil” moves to Colorado Springs. It's not much, but there doesn't seem to be much WP:SIGCOV on this guy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please be aware that canvassing on Twitter (archived tweet) and socking has commenced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing really pisses me off. Sgerbic (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs cleanup and removal of anything appearing to be strictly promotional. However, subject is notable due to multiple national television and radio appearances as well as reliable press coverage. Subject matter may be silly but Wiki afd guidelines has this to say: "What is deletion not for? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept." My vote is for cleanup of this article and removal of any claims not properly sourced. But, article should be kept per Wikipedia guidelines for notability.Predatordrone610 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)— Predatordrone610 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you sure that there would be anything left? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking a look at this user's edit history: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Predatordrone610) :bloodofox: (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Seriously? Do these people even know how transparent Wikipedia is. Sgerbic (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the subject is notable, and I'm not convinced, this would be a TNT job. As for this being a fictional character played by a performer who stays in character, the example of this sort of thing that springs to my mind is that of Keith Lemon. Notice how Lemon's article makes it completely clear that this is a character and who the performer is. There is even a separate article for the performer as they are famous for other things too. Tony Clifton (mentioned in the article) seems to fall into the same mould as Lemon. If UFO Phil falls onto this category too then this article is no good at all as it says nothing about who is behind the character. OTOH, he might be a bit more like Vermin Supreme, who is a real person who has adopted an unusual identity as their real self. If so, this article is no good as it lacks biographical details. Either way, there is very little here that is soberly informative. The fact that a reader could read the whole article and still have no idea what the subject actually is, is a sure sign that the article is no damn good. It is clear that this article is here to promote the guy/character/performance, not to serve our readers with encyclopaedic information. Let's get rid of it. If they really do make a big Hollywood biopic (yeah, right) then it can be recreated then. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Coast to Coast AM#Guests with a trimmed bio. This is a fictional character, like Morgus (also a guest).--Auric talk 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that would be much of a merge, as each person only gets a sentence or two, but I'd have no objection to this outcome. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are some reliable sources, a lot of that appears to be purely the result of self-promotion. Take a 14 January 2011 article from The Gazette^[1]: "During his stop on a round of local media interviews to drum up interest in his pyramid, he insisted his visit was no a publicity stunt, despite his cameraman's presence." Also, "Hill - if that is his real name - is the sort of pseudo-celebrity that is the product of the internet age. He doesn't have a television show or film career, but 421,0000 people have watched his low budget movie, "UFO Phil: The Movie," on YouTube. He doesn't have a major-label contract, but his songs about aliens have been played on national radio." --tronvillain (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the "UFO Phil sighting at Magic Lantern"^[2], which says: Just who is this Phil? Well, he claims to be Phil Hill, a guy “in my late 30s” who was born and raised on a ranch near Roswell, N.M. – home of the infamous UFO incident of July 7, 1947. Of course, he could be “Les Michaels,” the Portland filmmaker who contacted me by e-mail about the screenings of “UFO Phil: The Movie,” which he described as “a low-budget comedic mockumentary filmed guerilla-style on the streets of Spokane and in the woods around Mount Spokane.” Or he could be Rick Still, credited in the film as one of three cinematographers, the project’s executive producer – and as the person who plays, uh, “Les Michaels.” Seems relatively clear that UFO Phil is Rick Still, as should also be obvious to anyone looking at their photos. --tronvillain (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's pretty obvious. But no reliable source bothers to explicitly identify the actor portraying UFO Phil, preferring instead to play along and keep it mysterious. I think the point is, we have no serious reliable sources to cite regarding background and biographical details of this individual, because there's no actual journalism (research, fact checking, editorial process, etc.) available to base a Wikipedia article on — just promotional activity that's been regurgitated in various outlets. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I dislike otherstiffexisats I would point out it is not unusual for us to have pages on a character.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True. But it is also true that we routinely delete or redirect such pages to the film or book, and only keep them when they is a large amount of WP:SIGCOV of the character. I am just not seeing that here, the two local newspapers cited by LuckyLouie notwithstanding.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis discussion thus far has attempted to downplay the subject's notoriety by presenting only local news sources. Let's take a look at the national news coverage over the years. For example, this HuffPost article which clearly identifies UFO Phil as having the real name Phil Hill ^[3] There are a multitude of other national news articles and interviews which are all soured within the article. How about this national news article by Lee Speigel? ^[4] Not to mention the CBS News interview with Phil Hill, multiple HuffPost articles, the article on Coast to Coast AM's website, and the ABC Television website which shows his national TV appearance on August 2, 2018. It's clear that the person nominating this article for deletion has an ax to grind as this is the third time he's nominated the same article (his last attempt failed due to the subject having clear and demonstrable notoriety). If you choose to follow the rules of Wikipedia, the article should be kept. If you choose to disregard the principles of Wikipedia and instead erase those subjects which you personally have a distaste for, then clearly this article is headed for the deletion bin against all good judgement. Now the person who nominated the article is going to point out that this is my first ever Wiki edit. True. However, what I have written here makes sense and if you are a true proponent of Wikipedia's principles, you will agree with me regardless of my edit history. Thanks for your time. Blueblueseashore (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Blueblueseashore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Rappold, Scott (14 January 2011). Thomas, Thomas (ed.). "'UFO Phil' Brings His Idea of Peak Power to Springs". The Gazette. Vol. 139, no. 297. Colorado Springs, Colorada: Steven K. Pope. pp. A1–A2. ISSN 1531-2607.
^ Webster, Dan (13 March 2009). "UFO Phil sighting at Magic Lantern". The Spokesman-Review.
^ Lohr, David (14 May 2012). "UFO Phil Planning Network Show For Real Aliens". The Huffington Post.
^ Speigel, Lee (8 Feb 2011). "UFO Phil Wants to Put a Pyramid on Pikes Peak". AOL News.

Delete for several reasons including that this article was deleted once before and since then, he hasn't gained any notability so he would fail WP:N and all other notability guidelines for a fictional character. Nomination holds good points, as do most comments supporting delete. No reason not to, though the article does get a steady 15-25 views per day. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 06:38, 14 August 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.

[1] ttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/indonesia-selfie-sin-selfie4siauw_n_6563754.html

[2] ttps://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/12/235779/assim-al-hakeem-digital-currency-bitcoin-haram-islam-cryptocurrencies/

[3] ttps://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/universities-say-no-to-hate-speakers-1.32602

[4] Rappold, Scott (14 January 2011). Thomas, Thomas (ed.). "'UFO Phil' Brings His Idea of Peak Power to Springs". The Gazette. Vol. 139, no. 297. Colorado Springs, Colorada: Steven K. Pope. pp. A1–A2. ISSN 1531-2607.

[Spokesman-Review-5] Webster, Dan (13 March 2009). "UFO Phil sighting at Magic Lantern". The Spokesman-Review.

[6] Lohr, David (14 May 2012). "UFO Phil Planning Network Show For Real Aliens". The Huffington Post.

[7] Speigel, Lee (8 Feb 2011). "UFO Phil Wants to Put a Pyramid on Pikes Peak". AOL News.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]