Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 July	2 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 delete. Sandstein 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis J. Jones Jr.

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

While this individual is on the council of a large city his article does not indicate notability. All references are to the city's web page and there is nothing notable about his accomplishments on the city council. VViking_TalkEdits 23:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL (not enough press coverage) and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. While Philly is a global city for the purposes of making a city councillor eligible for an article under WP:NPOL #2, the actual inclusion criterion is still that the article has to be reliably sourced to some degree of media coverage about the councillor — but there's not a single non-primary source here, and not a single syllable of content about his political career beyond the initial statement that he happens to hold a city council seat. What's important and notability-making for a politician is their political career, not just where they went to high school and university. If somebody can actually write and source a reasonably substantive article about what he did in politics, then that would be a different barrel of fish than this is. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not finding a lot online, which is surprising. Any idea why? I'll investigate deeper, time permitting. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 4 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. As the article has been re-named and entirely re-written, to the point that the original rationale no longer applies, I'm speedily closing this as having no deletion rationale. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Král železný, král zlatý

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

The Czech Wikipedia entry also has no references and Highbeam and JSTOR are bringing up nothing on the subject. Google search first page only brings up articles with just an index of the book. An example is https://www.kosmas.cz/knihy/162363/kral-zelezny-kral-zlaty/. Therefore, this article may not be notable.

In addition to that, the contents written on the article are just not encyclopedic and as of this nomination the only content of the article is "Král železný, král zlatý is a Czech novel, written by Ludmila Vaňková. It was first published in 1977." (nomination version) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Ludmila Vaňková (the author), and rewrite so that it is about her, as she certainly satisfies GNG, as I pointed out at the last AfD. James500 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The article is now located Ludmila Vaňková and has been completely rewritten so that it is about the author. KEEP the article now located at Ludmila Vaňková (who satisfies GNG and AUTHOR) and the redirect created by the page move. I hope the nominator will now withdraw his nomination as it appears to be a dead letter. I cannot understand why the nominator did not move and rewrite the article himself. James500 (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have no familiarity with the subject. So I rather not write an article about someone I don't know about. Also I have no experience with AFD where the article is moved so I'll defer it to the judgement of the admin or others as they see fit. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to James500 for creating the new article. I have found some evidence that suggests the book is probably notable. The book and the others in the tetralogy were reprinted in 2002, 25 years after the original publication. The absence of online reviews can be attributed to the fact that the book was published in 1977. It is likely, given the reputation of the author, that multiple reviews were published in 1977. This is a case where the book may inherit notability from the author. At the same time, I cannot find the evidence that I think must exist. A partial translation from the Czech article can be seen at Draft:Král železný, král zlatý. Anyone who thinks the book is notable is welcome to improve and submit the draft, but in its current state, it isn't ready. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Eastmain: A number of the sources cited in the article appear to be reviews of Vaňková's books. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the reason searching for "Král železný, král zlatý" does not produce results in GBooks is because that is not how Google's search engine works. It does not like speech marks, it likes you to be very specific, and it likes you to use many strings of keywords and fragments. If you search for "Král železný, král zlatý"+1977 or "král zlatý"+1977+vankova or "lev a ruze"+kral, and things like that, you should get much better results. James500 (talk) 18:20, 2 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. Sandstein 09:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golem (software)

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

A blockchain app. No coverage outside of blockchain news sites. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about Golem on Forbes website. Also, Golem's token is ranked 43th in market capitalization ranking on CoinMarketCap with roughly $250 million capitalization. I'll add it to the article tomorrow. Flexovich (talk) 1 August 2018, 22:25 (UTC)
Neither is proof of notability. Forbes contributor articles are not reliable sources. MER-C 14:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- yet another spammy article in orbit around crypto currency. Masses of press releases and self written articles do not make for notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added references to TechCrunch and Nasdaq to the article. If that's not enough for notability, then delete it. You're obviously way more experienced than I in the realm of notability in English Wikipedia. Flexovich (talk) 3 August 2018, 09:58 (UTC)
Delete. Promotional cryptocurrency related article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The Nasdaq reference is a syndication from a cryptocurrency enthusiast website and is hence not a reliable source. MER-C 10:17, 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 keep , nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete arguments. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Pirhaji

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

There are several quality sources here, however, they are about Dr Pirhaji's company, and only mention the subject in the context of a passing quote from her as CEO. Other sources - such as papers Pirhaji has written - are not WP:INDEPENDENT. The only article about Prijahi is this in a business journal [1] which, while fine, isn't enough on its own to establish GNG. Pirhaji also doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC (h-index of 6 [2]).

Some of the sources also don't support the statements which they're used to support. In one example, this link to the company's website [3] is a pass-through link [4], neither of which mention Pirhaji at all. But they're used to support the statement "she received funding from ... MIT100K."

Ultimately, this reads like an article on the company ReviveMed with some mild puffery and a sentence on her education splashed in from her Bloomberg company profile. I'm sure she'll eventually warrant an article but this feels forced and too soon. Wolfson5 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've changed it to being a page more about the company with a small section on Leila. Admit it is maybe too soon. Let me know what you think Wolfson5. Apologies for puffery, trying to stop doing it. Jesswade88 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as an article on ReviveMed; and keep the original name as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the article moved to a new namespace I think it makes sense. Thanks! Wolfson5 (talk) 16:15, 2 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rowe Rowe

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

A non-notable musician. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I have moved this page and nomination to AfD; I believe the mover likely intended to place it in the mainspace and AfD is a better venue to assess notability. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. It is WP:TOOSOON for this article. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:38, 2 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. Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Racism

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

A new article that violates WP:NOTESSAY. There's no clear redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It's certainly a notable intersection, but this is an essay with so many things wrong that it's better to delete and start again. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacking a clear rationale for covering some issues rather than others (e.g. Catholic Church and Nazi Germany and Christian_views_on_slavery#Quakers but not Racial segregation of churches in the United States or Black people and Mormonism), which makes it an opinion essay. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an essay. If you believe it is an essay, what would you say its thesis is? Or which detail is an example of an opinion rather than a fact? The article is not US-focused, but you can certainly include the issues about racial segregation in US churches, Mormonism or other American social issues into it.Reesorville (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So much could/should be done with this topic than what this essay—and that is what this is—offers. The article needs a complete do-over with a more competent writer at the helm.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only suggestion so far as to what could be done differently is by adding things on racial segregation on US churches or Mormonism to it, both of which I have added in. But please, if you are going to say that this is an essay and needs change, then please specify what it is that you specifically think should be different. I am not making an unreasonable request here. I think this discussion should not be closed until someone tries to seriously answer that. Reesorville (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(with regret) Delete -- This is a significant subject, but this is a poor article. Christians do not have an unblemished record in this area. In the past, some Christians managed to justify segregation and apartheid from the Bible. Few would propound those views today, but in their time they were notable and notability is not temporary. Some of these unpleasant things need WP articles, but a general article like this needs to be built up as a summary or other "main" articles on particular aspects of the subject. Perhaps userify, so that the author can work up a series of rather more specific articles on different aspects of the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous articles already on the specific subjects, which I've just added links for. If the issue is that the article is bad quality and deserves better, than that is a different issue than saying the article is an essay. An essay is when someone is arranging facts and details in such a way as to get the reader to arrive at a particular conclusion that is being argued - I am trying my best and I can't understand why the other users see this as an essay, but if someone wants to claim this, then it is reasonable for me to ask for them to be more specific so we know what the issue is. If the issue instead, however, is simply that the article needs improvement because we would like an article of better quality on the subject, then deletion would not be adequate solution - it would make more sense to leave it open so that other users can add improvement to it. Someone created an article with this exact title about 5 years ago, but it was also deleted - if you delete this one, I have a feeling that no one is going to try to make new one and we will be left where we were at the start. Reesorville (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:TNT. Blow up this paltry personal ESSAY. Perhaps a good article will someday be written, and we do cover the topic on other pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please provide examples of something in the article which they think is my own personal opinion alone and not something that exists established sources? If this can't be done, then the claim it is an essay is unfounded. Reesorville (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure: "in many instances in the narrative, God determines to treat people differently on the basis of their ancestry." St Anselm (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very obvious that this isn't my own invention. How could you claim it was? Are there no Jews in past or present who have ever claimed that they were the chosen people, set apart specially for God? Or Christian churches saying essentially the same thing about God's election of the Jews? I just do a 5 minute search on a search engine and I can find lots of interpretations of the Old Testament from Christians of various denominations that interpret those stories in the Old Testament about generational curses as being punishments from ancestry. If you are claiming that this is an essay, it means that you are essentially saying that all of these things were all my own invention... which is impossible.... I am thinking that your actual issue with this is that you disagree with the idea itself and the way it is stated and perhaps would like to change it so that it says something which might be more neutral to Christians that hold other beliefs and think that the text has a different interpretation. In other words, rather than saying 'God makes distinction in the...' it could say something like 'interpretations of the Old Testament hold that God makes distinction in the...'. In that case I would I agree, and I think it would be very fair to try to reword it in that case.

But please try to understand at the same time why I included those things before I mentioned the ways that racist attitudes actually manifested in Christian theology with things like the 'curse of ham' or 'blood guilt' for the Jews. I think it is necessary to include some reference to those things in the Old Testament when speaking about this topic, because many readers don't know the Old Testament, and if you only just mention those things, without any reference to the context of supposed 'generational blessings or curses', the reader might have no clue where such ideas could have possibly come from when people of past times came up with them and the reader will then be lacking a very critical context in understanding the topic.

If I am right in that thinking, that that is in fact what the real issue is, then I think this discussion properly belongs on the talk page of the article and not here, where there is a call to delete the article because it is supposedly a product of my own personal ideas, which it is not. Reesorville (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plain essay, magnet for WP:OR. Also per WP:AND –Ammarpad (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide examples of things in the article that make it an essay or which are OR? Reesorville (talk) 01:59, 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. Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Porikos

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

A promotional article about a collegiate hockey player who doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY, who is now a social media marketing consultant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More specific guidelines overrule WP:GNG, right (per WP:IINFO?) Assuming so, Delete because he fails WP:NHOCKEY and is not notable for anything else. LittlePuppers (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(my opinion, others may disagree) They can, in some circumstances. For example, the WP:MILL coverage of college hockey games such as [5] should be ignored for the purpose of GNG based on the subject-specific guidelines. That said, not meeting an SNG isn't enough to delete an article, as an extreme case whether Arthur Conan Doyle meets WP:NCRIC is irrelevant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks - although I'd say Arthur Conan Doyle would be judged by WP:AUTHOR :). LittlePuppers (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he is notable through either his entrepreneurial or his athletic profile (or their combination). Agricolae (talk) 01:20, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Sinner

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Kleuske (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP & per the first AfD that closed as "Delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Fails WP:CORP as the previously deleted version did. References in this version are promotional, not reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only reason this escapes speedy deletion as recreation of a deleted article is that the studio has won yet another tinfoil trophy handed out by a PR business to its clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wasn't notable the first time round, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 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. Sandstein 09:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Ellington

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

Very much a CV of a young and, apparently, successful man who is currently running for political office in a District of San Fransisco. This suggests the article has been written to raise his profile during his campaign (and the author is apparently a paid editor). Very little in the way of significant reliable secondary coverage about Ellington, apart from a news article about housing in a neighbourhood of SF where he has purchased property. Insufficent proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG; no presumption of notability for political candidates, especially for municipal elections. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Reads very promotionally. SportingFlyer talk 07:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in municipal elections — he would have to win a supervisor's seat to pass WP:NPOL, and absent that he has to have enough preexisting notability for other reasons to pass another inclusion criterion. But this article shows no evidence of that at all: about half the footnotes are primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and the half that are media coverage are not enough in volume or range or depth to make his candidacy special. An unelected city council candidate passing GNG is not just a question of "some media coverage exists", because some media coverage always exists of city council elections: we consider factors like what context that coverage is being given for, how much coverage there is, how widely dispersed it is from purely local, and/or how deeply it focuses on him. But this doesn't pass any of those four tests. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there seems to be enough mentions in news articles to establish notability. "Reads promotionally" is something that can be fixed, not a reason for deletion. It's unclear what the Doc James claim of paid editing stems from. What can he say about that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:09, 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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domaduir

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

No evidence that such a place exists. Coords are of a location with no settlement nearby. Photo is of a different location, taken from Geograph, where this name is not used. Cited references refer to a third location, Erbusaig, for which we already have an article. Deskford (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Deskford (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revocation of suggestion of deletion: There is an error on Google Maps with Domaduir currently not being shown; steps have been taken to rectify this omission. The links to pages concerning Erbusaig are necessary as it is the nearest sizeable settlement and it is within the parish of Erbusaig that Domaduir lies; thus statistics relating to Domaduir are to be found within those for Erbusaig. Inky Scrolls (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not verifiable and possibly falls under WP:HOAX. No sources support that this exists, and most of the entire article was copied from Erbusaig. Could probably PROD it instead. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: yeah, it's Gaelic for "your mother" according to a quick google search. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did PROD first. The creator of the article removed the PROD. --Deskford (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I should've checked. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SimpsonsWiki is not WP:RS as anyone can edit it, I've noticed that this page was linked from one of the article episodes from the Simpsons and found the unreliable source on the debated page. Iggy (Swan) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utter nonsense. The refs are either unreliable or fail verification. The co-ords and descriptions of the location contradict each other. It's not on the map. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search on Google reveals zero results. Blatant hoax.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as blatant hoax. On top of all the above, it fails to hit in geonames, inconceivable in a 1st world country. Mangoe (talk) 00:49, 3 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 procedural close. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 August 1#Caliphatism. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caliphatism

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

I can find no evidence that this is an actual concept/ideology; no literature is cited in any previous versions. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:55, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please close/delete this. I opened this in error, when I ought to have opened a thread on the RfD page instead. I have since done this. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:27, 1 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Mayes Jr

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

Remrod fails WP:ARTIST. Dewritech (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question. But Dewritech, the article tells us: “Gateway To The West” Native Remrod Is A Gift To The City Of St. Louis. As A Highly Talented And Passionate Photographer And Videographer, His Contributions To The Industry Of Modern Art Have Made St. Louis An International Hub For Creativity. Is that notability or what? -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable.[6][7] Kraose (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a locally known photographer, not known outside of his city. When he gets a solo exhibit at a major musuem, the article can be re-created. Merely having local coverage does not prove notability of an artist. Saying someone is "clearly notable" and coming up with two local stories ruins one's argument. St. Louis is a great city, with many notable people, but this guys isn't one of them. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. Two Andies, Andy Warhol and Andy Carnegie, made Pittsburgh an international art center. This subject clearly hasn't done the same for his city. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete photographer with small local notice but nothing adding to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two citations. (1) A Better Business Bureau entry. (2) An advertisement for an upcoming Fox 2 (St. Louis) program (that's right, we don't have an article about that channel). Neither citation supports what is said in the bulk of the article; they merely show that he exists and is a photographer. No independent WP:RS coverage, fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"What started as a hobby developed quickly into an empire." Surely an empire can withstand deletion of this article. Perhaps he can come back (Complete With Idiosyncratic Capitalization) when there are more reliable sources. Till then, delete. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 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) Lepricavark (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlan Hutahaean

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

Fails WP:BIO - just 2 low-quality mentions at Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of about Ramlan Hutahaean isn't available on online sources, only available on newspapers. Remember that he is the secretary general of the largest church in Indonesia. If you want to search some online sources, use the Indonesian Google to do it. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's difficult to judge the notability of someone where the sources to provide notability are in another language, in this case Indonesian. However, as Secretary General of the largest protestant church in Indonesia, with 4.5 million baptised members, he is likely to be notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag as a stub. This is a church whose WP article says it has 4.5M members. It is headed by a single bishop, with the Secretary General seemingly as the next most important person. He and predecessors are thus likely to be more notable than many Anglican bishops, for whom we invariably have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Issue is not with the notability but finding sources in English language. Rzvas (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The position he holds would indicate he meets WP:GNG, but the above editors are correct that more sources need to be done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 6 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Agriculture

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

Essentially a paid advertisement. The firm might be notable, but the article would need to be rewritten from scratch . DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources: CNBC interview with CEO, (local news?) Boston Herald article, local news (possible press release but I'm not sure), Boston Globe article, local radio article, Digital Trends article, Forbes 25 most innovative agtech startups, more local news, 2016 Forbes article. (Only 1 or 2 of the sources I've listed are used in the article). None of these were marked as press releases by Google news/don't seem to be from blog contributors, but it seems to pass WP:NCORP. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 20:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, BUT: Sources look legit, but needs a serious dose of editing to remove corporate puffery such as "a company dedicated to harnessing nature to help farmers sustainably feed the planet." PaulCHebert (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've slashed and burned the puffery that cropped up. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 00:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources for GNG to be met. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO; the article is too promotional to be worth keeping. Beyond that, has not achieved anything significant just yet. Sources are advertorial in nature, resulting in a promotional article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company has a valuation of over $1B now, and is a "unicorn". I made some edits to improve the tone and flow, and added a Boston Globe article. The other sources identified above that aren't in the article, along with investor interest, suggests the company meets WP:GNG. I'd like to see some news about the purported higher crop yields, since the first coverage from 2016 suggests there should be some results by now, so I'll put this one on my watch list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the above and that it has been rewritten since this started. SmartSE (talk) 20:21, 6 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 (G5, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226). MER-C 16:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TravelBeta

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Insufficient significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The references are a mix of interviews with employees, press release equivalents, routine coverage, and passing mentions, all of which fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The article that comes closest to meeting the requirements is the Techpoint.africa article, but this company needs significant coverage from multiple sources to establish notability. — Newslinger talk 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:49, 1 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. Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Mission Australia

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

Fails WP:GNG, advertising based on related sources. The Banner talk 18:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 1 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. Tagged by me and G11ed by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 09:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Service Cambodia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Advertising based on sources that are passing mentions, do not name the organisation at all or are clearly related (sources not conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 18:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Radio Stations on Apple Music

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR. None of the entries on this list (except Beats 1) have articles, because Beats 1 is Apple Music's only staffed radio station. The remainder is all non-notable playlists. — Newslinger talk 18:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not radio stations. They're auto-generated or human-sorted playlists. That's basically a database, which makes the entire concept of this article completely incorrect. Nate • (chatter) 19:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR and IINFO. Entries don't seem like they'll become notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and just a promo article for Apple. Ajf773 (talk) 11:46, 2 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. Sandstein 09:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Prime Ministers of Canada

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. See outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Children of the Presidents of the United States for precedent. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above AfD ended with no consensus, not keep. I would argue that US presidents are more high-profile than Canadian PMs, so consequently there will probably be more coverage of US presidents' children than Canadian PMs'. However, this is just my educated guess which may not reflect the actual sources. Tera TIX 13:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to having been a no-consensus close rather than a clearcut keep, that discussion is 11 years old. So it has no binding value on whether this is eligible for rediscussion or not, because consensus can change. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question a single AFD can really decide the outcome of this page even when the similar article for the United States has survived the discussion? Kraose (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Children of Prime Ministers are not inherently notable for that fact — while there are obviously some individual exceptions for people who attained their own standalone notability claims in their own right, they don't automatically inherit a free notability pass just because their dad was notable. Justin Trudeau and Ben Mulroney and Caroline Mulroney are notable because of their own accomplishments as adults, not just because their dads happened to be prime ministers. There's no serious value in maintaining a list of the names of every child of every prime minister, however, because most of them aren't of any public interest at all — and the few who are can't reasonably claim to be defined by the fact as a group. And as I noted above, a decade-old discussion that closed no consensus is not a controlling precedent in and of itself for having to keep this — we need to discuss this strictly on its own merits or lack thereof, not on the fact that we couldn't manage a clear decision on a different article 11 years ago. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. I question the value and have certain WP:BLP concerns with the maintenance of this (and similar lists). 1) Notability is not inherited 2) Some, if not many of these individuals may be low profile individuals and accorded a elevated level of privacy (especially around birthdates and other sensitive information), and the mere creation of a list has the (unintended?) consequence of elevating the profile of these individuals. 3) Many of the prime ministers have a "personal life" section where information about the PM's family can be found. --Enos733 (talk) 18:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A reminder to all participants that this discussion is about these two articles, not any other(s)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and Enos733. Tacyarg (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic list, as the nom states Notability is not inherited. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:07, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Torpey

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

This person is of dubious notability. I read the guidelines for politicians and all he is was a smaller town Mayor that received local coverage and the occasional story on the statewide newspaper site. I think it hardly qualifies as "significant." I doubt that fact that he was young when he was elected makes it automatic criteria. Tehe most recent addition appears to be that he got a local town administrator's job. There might be some coverage of him but it is no more routine than any other person holding his position. Few small town mayors and town employees would warrant a wiki page. This reads more like a personal bio. I am eager for thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nj829103 (talk • contribs) 17:38, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Formatted by Eastmain after Nj829103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created the nomination in the wrong format. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the uncommon cases where a small-town mayor passes WP:GNG, with coverage in The New York Times and NextCity, as well as routine coverage from his immediate area. Some of the coverage is because of his age; some is because of his expertise in social media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment eesh, this seems to me to be a quality borderline AfD. He fails any WP:NPOL presumption and the only good sources which may meet the NPOL "significant coverage" prong in the article are the New York Times biography and the NextCity article but they probably satisfy that. There's a lot sourced to his own website, many sources only contain trivial mentions of him, it reads very promotionally and needs significant cleanup. SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete Although he has received coverage in the NY Times it seems to be more of a human interest story about such a young mayor and his "new" way of doing things. Had he not been in New Jersey and been in say New Mexico would this article have been run at all. No real substance that I saw. Whether we keep the article or not, it needs a lot of work as it is very promotional and looks more like what would be on his campaign page on not an encyclopedia.VViking_TalkEdits 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I am the one who tagged this for deletion so I will add my comment here. I agree that the NYT story was simply a human interest type story based on one small event that wouldn't have been printed in that publication if it were in most other states. There is significant local coverage of him but that is no different from any local coverage of a small town local elected official or tiny town administrator. Most small town local officials who served for a few years could produce a ton of local media coverage and even some from a statewide newspaper. They don't get Wikipedia pages. NextCity, though a large (and good) website, is a site where anyone who writes something or offers an idea can get "coverage". Most of the links seem to be his own web site or youtube channel or just random local stories about the normal course of his small town mayor gig. The reason I raised this was because i came across his name in another story I was reading and then stumbled across this page which to me seemed kinda silly and read more like a promotional bio)
Your nomination already counts as a "delete" recommendation, so you should not add a second one and I have struck it. You're welcome to continue to comment though. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info. I was unawareNj829103 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To leave my comment in the right place: Several local and state records were set with this election (mostly due to age, still historically relevant), this individual performed the first same-sex marriage in the state of New Jersey (fairly historically relevant), and there's a handful of in-depth regional/national (tech or government) press and websites, including Politico, Mashable, Huffington Post, Upworthy, Next City, GovFresh, Inc Magazine, and a number of smaller (but legitimate) blogs/podcasts almost all of which of which were written by real journalists, not community submissions. The promotional tone could be because of the back and forth in the history between someone who kept vandalizing the page and it kept getting reverted back and forth, it looks like he/others added more content to try and push back on that before it was protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nj098987 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that there is coverage does not mean something meets the notability guidelines for a politician. There are 15,000 Mayor in the United States and many of them have significant coverage. It doesn't make them notable for Wikipedia pages. This guys successes are nice but the page appears to be primarily self promotion of trivial articles. Nj829103 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does confuse me... You suggest my entire position is invalid based on disagreeing with one small part of my justification. There are thousands of mayors in the US, yes, but there is only one who was the youngest in this town's history, somewhat historical, but one who also set a similar record in the county of one million people, as well as a state-wide record among eight million people, especially for someone not belonging to one of the major political parties and for a town that size. To me, that alone seems like it meets Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, which seems like an opinion which is perfectly reasonable to hold. If you disagreed with the way the content was written on the page or what was included, specifically, a promotional tone, that would seem to be the more appropriate course of action, to correct or suggest corrections to that, which probably all would agree is worth doing (and probably make sense based on the page's history of obvious and ongoing vandalism). Nj098987 (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The town you were mayor in is 16k people. The population of the state and county are irrelevant considering that none of them cast a vote for you. The fact that you didn't belong to a major political party is irrelvent since by law the elections in the town are nonpartisan, don't have primaries, and occur in May. The content, while self promotional, is only one issue. The fact that there is dubious notability is the primary issue which renders the content issue mootNj829103 (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have separated out comments made by Nj829103 and Nj098987 based on the edit history [8][9] of this page. They were mashed together because Nj829103's response was made on the same line after the unsigned comment by Nj098987. Both: please be careful with your comments, since the similarity of your user names makes it difficult to distinguish between you and you have said that you are not the same person, so I doubt that's what you want. Marianna251TALK 18:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just reviewed the sources again. The political stories are trivial, as you would expect them of any mayor of any age - he didn't get any particular notability bonus because of his age at election, apart from the New York Times article, and I'm influenced by the fact this is only a feature article because of local coverage. Several sources he wrote himself or are sourced to his website or are otherwise primary. The other sources he only gets a trivial mention in. He gets no WP:NPOL presumption, and NPOL requires significant coverage in multiple feature stories - given the NextCity source isn't necessarily reliable, that leaves the Times article. Notability is not met because someone sets records when they get elected - it's set when the media gives significant coverage to those records being set. Furthermore, the keep vote from a very similar username created after this AfD was launched, and calling an AfD an "unconstructive edit" - something strange is going on here. SportingFlyer talk 21:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. South Orange is part of New York City's metropolitan area, so the existence of some citations to New York City media is not an instant pass to national notability all by itself — it still represents local coverage in the local media, not "nationalized" coverage for the purposes of making a smalltown mayor special. Apart from that, however, the rest of the sourcing here is a mix of Essex County's local pennysavers, primary sources that cannot support notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources which aren't about him, which is not good enough either. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete village presidents are almost never notable, and nothing about Torpey suggests he is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 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 merge to Round-robin tournament. Sandstein 09:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of Death (sporting)

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

Unreferenced since 2009. May be WP:OR. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Round-robin tournament as a section. This can be sourced pretty easily [10] but it's not really notable. It's not a topic unto itself, it's just a well-known issue that can arise with RR tournaments (anyone who runs tournaments will be familiar with it, and it's one reason that people move quickly away from RR to double-elimination instead, when feasible). I even devised a "demi-finals" system for resolving it, before I learned better, and I'm sure I'm not alone. The kind of silly name originates, from what I can tell, from ACUI and their College Bowl competitions (they also do concurrent pool tournaments and several other intramural competitions between various North American colleges and universities). College students are precisely the kind of crowd who would come up with such a name, so it's not particularly dubious, especially since a fair amount has been written about it. But it's not significant coverage in high-quality, independent, reliable, secondary sources. It's enough to pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as article content, but not enough to pass WP:N as its own page. PS: Regardless, remove the over-capitalization and render this as "circle of death" per MOS:CAPS. If "round-robin tournament" is not a proper-noun phrase, then a round-robin tournament gone awry isn't one either. See also WP:SPORTCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Round-robin tournament - I've taken action and rewrote the round robin tournament page already in order to incorporate the idea presented here, so the article can be safely deleted. SportingFlyer talk 10:53, 2 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RunMC

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

Non-notable software package created by a now-indef-blocked sock, who re-created it after it was prodded in 2007. The only reference is to a research paper which I assume is authored by (judging from the username) the sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Nom's points seem legitimate. My search only came up with one potential suitable source (someone with access to specific journals might get more) - Hera and the LHC Book. Unfortunately as a snippet view I couldn't make a good enough determination as to its suitability. Lacking determination either way, I believe a WD is the most detailed !vote I can give at this time. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see notability for Wikipedia. There are some references that acknowledge the existence (e.g., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016764230800004X https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1118/1.3058480 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5945735/ ) but do not actually use it. May well be because of Wikipedia that they even mention it at all. Even within the narrow HEP domain, this does not appear to be notable work (no worth mentioning citation in 10 years); so it is not of encyclopedic notability. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are minimal sources out there and not much content in the page itself. I don't see how it can be expanded or is notable. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It must be deleted as it has been created by a sock. The edit history cant remain. It a mandatory delete. scope_creep (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched and couldn't find any significant coverage beyond what Nosebagbear mentioned above. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 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. Sandstein 09:27, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Advisors

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable private company. All of the references are run of the mill mentions in niche industry publications. Fails WP:NCORP. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The previous AfD close would qualify as a WP:BADNAC, at least by today's standards. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in the reliable/independent sources available, either as Greenfield or Mundy Associates. Even within those sources it usually fell into WP:ROUTINE. There were a few quotes, especially on effects of views on prices, but nothing actually informing about the company. Definitely no indication of passing WP:NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gab) 15:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:19, 6 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. Sandstein 09:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofana R. Dahlan

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies of living persons. Rahiminejad (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself hedges on actually claiming notability for her. Just saying "it is said". Nothing to actually make her a notable legal scholar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (blab) 15:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Sam Walton (talk) 09:18, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandor Bodzas

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

This article doesn't meet WP criteria for notability BrantleyIzMe (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient cites on GS to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter¹²³ (quip) 15:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Membership in a national academy is enough to pass WP:PROF. See [17] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that he is a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is referenced in the article to a site in Hungarian, apparently of a judo school or similar. He only got a his PhD in 2014, & per the article is a junior lecturer. Too soon. I'm far from sure that WP:PROF means that every member of every national academy is notable; it's unclear. Actually he doesn't seem to be a regular member/fellow, but to be listed on some other "public body" database. As best as I can tell, these three are the only "Sandor" regular members/fellows (first names last in the usual Hungarian way). Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:PROF by high-impact publications (citation counts too low) nor by membership in the Hungarian national academy. If he were a full member he would certainly pass, and the reference does go to the academy's site, not to a Judo school, but it only shows that he belongs to some local committee, not that he has the kind of membership that would count as a high honor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure any full member of any national academy would always pass - note that many countries have institutions like the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, and while academics may be covered by WP:PROF, there is nothing specific that I'm aware of in notability guidelines re writers and artists etc that make this a factor. Not really relevant here, since he isn't a member anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF h-index is low.Further he passed his PHD only in 2014 and is only a lecturer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 3 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. Sandstein 09:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Kesha and Macklemore

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage, just tour dates and set lists. --wooden superman 11:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This tour has not received significant coverage, per WP:NTOUR. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (yak) 15:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The tour is now over. It has generated a lot of non-trivial news coverage since the nomination, such as here, here and here. --Lambiam 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when nominated I don't think this article satisfied notability. However with the sources offered by Lambiam above (all good) then I think WP:NTOUR is clearly satisfied. I would ask Magnolia677 and wooden to have a look at them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 11:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NTOUR per a review of available sources. In addition to the sources listed above by Lambiam, here are a few more: [18], [19], [20]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 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 redirect to Aberdeen Proving Ground. Sandstein 09:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Program Executive Office Command Control Communications Tactical

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Unsourced and no independent sources found. Suggest redirect. Kleuske (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - (n.b. target TBD) - While there is plenty of sig-cov on the organisation, both in news and books, it is generally in non-independent sources. In the rare exceptions it fails to meet Sig Cov requirements. I would not be shocked to find some acceptable sourcing, though whether there is sufficient to meet WP:NORG, I'm unsure. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) 15:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is reasonable, either to its headquarters (Aberdeen Proving Ground) or its parent organization. I slightly prefer APG. --Izno (talk) 20:30, 1 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) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental lines

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

Non-notable unreferenced theory with loads of original research. » Shadowowl | talk 17:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 18:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It's clear this was, once, a thing. It's not clear how accurate this article is WRT the state of the field, given how many Freudian notions have been discarded, but my sense is that improvement is what is called for, not deletion. Mangoe (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. important, at least historically. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) 15:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was certainly "a thing", see this summary by Lydia Tischler of Anna Freud's work, and Freud's own account of the concept. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This was one of Anna Freud's major theories. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Lesbian: Genuine Tongue Technique

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:NFILM and significant RS coverage not found. Awards are not significant. References in the article are passing mentions, promotional, or unselective databases. The award listed ("Best Film 6th Place Award") is not significant or well-known. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG; run of the mill porn flick. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, an award for 6th place doesn't confer notability. Ifnord (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User: Ifnord. Vorbee (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notbality, , Fails & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In virtually any other field, coming in sixth place is termed "losing", not "winning" an award. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:30, 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. Sandstein 09:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by residence

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

This is about as trivial as it gets. The residences don't even get mentioned in the individual PMs' articles for the most part. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it makes as little sense to group together their final resting places as their residences:

delete residence list as festival of WP:OR and trivia. I cannot see how to gather this info from secondary sources, not that there's any suggestion of what these were. Looking at the lists, it seems to me that some of these could be combined, including the burial place list. Mangoe (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a List of residences of Canadian prime ministers seems like a less-trivial-sounding phrasing of this grouping. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:56, 2 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. Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M Sajas

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

There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources regarding the subject. I've found just this New Indian Express [21] source which may be significant and reliable but insufficient to establish notability. The subject is described as a debutante and his work in films may not be noteworthy. I believe this article does not pass the notability criteria listed at WP:GNG and WP:NFILMMAKER. The editor whose username is Z0 13:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:NFILMMAKER. Ifnord (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and fails WP:NFILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfD closing admin here. The previous RfD which led to this AfD can be found here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_July_24#M_Sajas. I am neutral in this discussion. --Deryck C. 11:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for failing notability guidelines and lacking reliable sources. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Persistence coverage demanded. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:20, 3 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 merge to Woods Cross, Utah. Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wood (Mormon pioneer)

AfDs for this article:

(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 minor name checks and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Woods Cross, Utah. Previous AfD in 2011 reached consensus based on expectation of article/reference expansion that hasn't happened. Bakazaka (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Woods Cross, Utah per above. Only extensive source is as primary as they come; the only claim to notability is the naming of the town. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His grandson Wilford C. Wood who is the actual subject of the Church News article listed as a source, might be notable for his significant work in advancing the perseveration of LDS history. Daniel Wood is clearly not notable however.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Woods Cross, Utah, as above. Deaddebate (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator) – I would be fine with a merge to Woods Cross, Utah. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downpatrick & District Snooker & Billiard League

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

Unlikely to pass WP:GNG. Unsourced. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've yet to see any local league turn out to be notable. I guess one could be if it ended up inventing something like a new version of a sport that swept the globe, or it turned out to be operated by and the main recruiting means of a terrorist group, or something else odd. But nothing like that is happening here. "Some folks get together every week and do amateur sports in my town and the neighboring ones" isn't an encyclopedia topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well below the notability standard. Nigej (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources indicating notability. Tacyarg (talk) 23:35, 6 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. Sandstein 09:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color Theory (musician)

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No charting, gold, national rotation. Award is not major (and not that credible). Article has a lot of sources but none are good. A mix of primary, promo and blogs (really? a bit torrent site as a ref, desperation much). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all sources are unreliable, and therefore bad for showing notability (no matter which guideline you use), no notable awards, and not even any claim of notability. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:46, 2 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 deleted, per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 12:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

9052348

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

Non-notable natural number, one of an infinite series. Page apparently created as a hook on which to hang a bit of unreferenced and unencyclopaedic trivia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not worth having an article no one will search for in order to have a place to record the number of likes/dislikes on a music video. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article begins by stating an obvious comment, and under the section sub-titled "Mathematics", seems to be less on mathematics than the likes versus dislikes of a Justin Bieber video. Vorbee (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect a speedy probably applies, but it is in no way notable even in the trivia was actually notable in its own right; which it is as far from being as possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blocked vandalism-only account. Bakazaka (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the most obsessed Anti-Beliebers would never care about this number. Nate • (chatter) 19:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NUMBER. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 1 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. Sandstein 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Magic B2B

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

Non-notable company. There is an absolute dearth of in-depth and WP:PERSISTENT coverage in reliable sources, and no suggestion elsewhere that the company is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NCORP; the few passing mentions that do exist are TOM Group press-release regurgitation. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The subject lacks sufficiently convincing evidence of independent notability. More importantly, all Chinese sources except the last one are press releases.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 07:24, 3 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth DeCicco

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

Apparent autobiography of non notable actress. "Known for her role as Dana Coleman on In Plain Sight" where over the course of 5 seasons and 61 episodes she appeared in a total of one episode. The others she is listed as working on, Click as Hot Assistant (uncredited), The Aviator as Starlet (uncredited), The 40 Year Old Virgin as bar girl. All minor parts. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way below the notability threshold for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 4 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 Amadocus II. WP:BOLDly done by nominator. ansh 666 18:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amatokos II

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

This page is about the same person as the page called Amadocus II. I suggest deleting this page and note the different spelling of his name in the the Amadocus II page. Chewings72 (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A redirect would be more helpful. Note that Amatokos I is already a redirect to Amadocus I. Merge anything worth merging. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amadocus II per User:Eastmain. Doesn't look like there is anything useful to merge into the target article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above statements. There seem some minor differences (358 vs 359), but from the articles, there's no reason to think that the dates from this one are more accurate. In any case, the redirect seems accurate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to put in redirect as suggested.Chewings72 (talk) 04:32, 2 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. Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Angelo State Rams football team

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS. Minor division 2 school that went entire season without a ranking. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NSEASONS is an inclusionary standard. It is part of WP:NSPORTS which states: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline ...)" So the real question here is whether Angelo State's 2017 and 2018 seasons have received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: The other schools in the conference has a 2017 season article. So does teams from the Template:2017 Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference football standings and Template:2017 Gulf South Conference football standings and most of those teams didn't get ranked as well. Teams for the 2018 season also has been created as well, 2018 NCAA Division II football season. So its not like its a new random article. Its not the first, nor is it the last as I haven't finished with the rest of the conference yet for the 2018 season, I can find more sources to tag the articles with.--Jpp858 (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:51, 18 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 20:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep /if not merge to Angelo State Rams football I think that there are some sources out there that would suffice to pass GNG like so many of the former D-II California programs. But I also believe that those should be present in the article. If these cannot be met then merge to the football program article.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random non-notable team. Calm Omaha (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are out there. I would be more likely to support a delete for a group nomination of all the team season articles like this, say all non-championship-winning NCAA Division II team seasons, or at least all of the 2017 ones. Cherry-picking off this one article while leaving all of it's conference mates (see Category:2017 Lone Star Conference football season) is not a consistent approach. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:09, 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 02:18, 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) 10:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Team finished 4-4 in conference so nothing outstanding about its season. Nothing in coverage to show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NSEASONS, college seasons may or may not be notable depending on the context - but there's nothing to show this team's season, being played in a minor collegiate division, is notable. SportingFlyer talk 09:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Angelo State Rams football or Angelo State Rams#Football per nom. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NSEASONS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:54, 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. Sandstein 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Action House

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

No substantial or thoughtful news coverage. No non-local news coverage. Nothing unique about this organization - See WP:MILL. Daask (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 11:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 11:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 11:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Obviously, this article doesn't have WP:N. I mean, it's just an organisation and it hasn't got much significant coverage of worldwide or even mainstream-media attention. I'm not saying it's not important (or even very) but Wikipedia goes under the "court of law, not morals" phrase in this situation. 🖍S (talk) 10:20, 1 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. Sandstein 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PRAVAT ROUT

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Kleuske (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The existing references are weak. There is an imdb page at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm7811442/ but imdb is not a reliable source. The article Pravat Rout was deleted a while ago. Checking in other languages would be a good idea. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no English references, I doubt there are any in Hindi but haven't checked. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, as the first movie they're directing hasn't been released yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - casting directors are not automatically notable, and there are not a single reliable source in the article. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no evidecne of notability and a possible case of conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 4 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. Sandstein 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless Sinner

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

The only reference is to a Facebook page. Fails WP:BAND. A loose noose (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Once again this nominator has missed WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST, because an editor should first attempt to improve an article with weak references by searching for new ones, instead of assuming the band is non-notable based only on the state of the article. I searched for sources and found some fanzine-style profiles: [22], [23], [24]; and a couple of reviews for one of their albums: [25], [26]. That might be enough for a basic stub article but I don't think this constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources. However, there are many sources in European languages that appear to me to be more of the same, though skilled translation might reveal more useful information. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:40, 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) 09:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'. The only references in the current revision apparently are "Lase &Christine a ramp with the light" and a Facebook page for the external link I believe. 🖍S (talk) 10:28, 1 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. Sandstein 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Ronner-Grubačić

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

Deletion requested via OTRS by subject's representative. Their rationale is given below. As the nominator, I am filing this solely on their behalf, and take no position myself as to whether the article should be kept or deleted.

Nomination rationale:

the person/ subject of the article is not a notable person
the topic has NOT received significant coverage in reliable sources; even more, the quoted sources are unreliable, trivial, not-objective, biased, non-independent, paid media controlled by anti-EU political activists. The whole article is the malicious product of a political activist who calls himself Bukovina Sengen, (a hint to local political issues).
the Wikipedia article makes negative assumptions, without providing needed context, by narrowing down the whole biography of the Ambassador to just two so called controversies.
the articles passes along a random hoax and gossips, posting indiscriminate collections of information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Typically individuals that are Official Diplomatic Ambassadors qualify for inclusion, here at Wikipedia, under WP:NPOL. As Ms. Ronner-Grubačić is the Netherlands Offical Ambassador to Romania and Moldova, which is cited and referenced in the article. In addition, I found the article well written – well sourced – and not showing any unduly weighted Point of View. Yes, there is a Heading 2.2 Controversy, however, again found it cited and sourced. ShoesssS ^Talk 15:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is long standing policy that ambassadors are not default notable for such, and there is no other claim to notability for Ronner-Grubacic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:49, 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) 09:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per request; there doesn't seem to be a significant amount of independent coverage of her (apart from a recent scandal). power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Political_figures_not_elected_to_public_office explicitly states ambassadors are not inherently notable. Also, it might not be NPOV based on the creator being a single-purpose editor/account. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 01:32, 5 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. Sandstein 11:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cot (2017 hindi short film)

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

Contested PROD. The PROD rationale was "No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM" which is still true. The four sources are two press releases, one listing on the Filmfares website, and one review. The review looks like a good source, but the rest do nothing to show notability, and so there is still no significant coverage. As for WP:NFILM, none of the criteria is met. It's been nominated for an award, but not won one.

Note also that this is part of a walled garden of articles about Manjari Fadnis, created by a SPA, an enthusiastic fan who is deeply invested in promoting her and her work. bonadea contributions talk 07:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I stand by my PROD rationale. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film that fails WP:NFILM. Simply not enough coverage making a claim of significance for the film.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to the Humaramovie if you have made up your mind to delete this article, it relates to short films and not mainstream theatrical releases but it was relevant as popular actors now a days themselves coming up to act in these short films

Crispgatoglitz (talk) 19:35, 6 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. Inadequately sourced self-written vanity page for obviously non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Sharma

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

Autobiography of an actor who has not actually been in any production as yet. Fails the specific notability guidelines for actors & biographies and the general notability guideline. Jack Frost (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How can this possibly comply with WP:N? It's lucky that with 3 sources (may not even be reliable), it could have WP:V. 🖍S (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as assistant directors rarely have enough coverage for inclusion, and it's WP:TOOSOON as an actor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:04, 1 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Smith Rowe

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I challenge this view, based on WP:GNG. Individual has certainly the required "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". I will add further references to the article. TAG 09:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - case of WP:TOOSOON, article can be recreated if and when subject meets requirements listed above. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look at those citations but they are really WP:ROUTINE, no where near enough to satisfy WP:GNG and he clearly fails NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside of the Arsenal.com sources, I would argue that coverage in Sky, Independent and The Times is sufficient to fulfil GNG and I wouldn't say it was ROUTINE as not many youth players get coverage of their contract signings covered by 3rd party sources as he has here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It would be absurd to delete this. If you do so it's just going to be justifiably recreated within a couple weeks after he fully meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Let's use common sense instead of pointlessly sticking to guidelines. It just causes unnecessary churn. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the need to delete the article of someone who is very likely about to satisfy the NFOOTY requirements. Lepricavark (talk) 17:25, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novant Health Forsyth Medical Center

AfDs for this article:

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

I failed to locate significant coverage in reliable & independent sources. Fellow articles listed at Novant_Health#Hospitals have been merged & redirected except for this, because a previous AFD closed with no consensus. Much of the content is unsourced and probably WP:OR. The editor whose username is Z0 17:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novant Health Per the same reasons as my first vote!. No improvements done, still sounds like a virtual Ctrl+V of 'novanthealth.com/forsyth/about_us', redirect it. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 1 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 Leopard 2#Fire control. Sandstein 08:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EMES 15

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

Reads like an product description. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. Can possible be merged into Leopard 2. Has no sources. » Shadowowl | talk 16:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leopard_2#Fire_control. If there is any additional verifiable information, it could be added there.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 11:34, 1 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. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flow State World Tour

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

not sourced, not entirely notable, depicts future events. Melodies1917 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 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 July 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Currently, while there is plenty of coverage, there didn't seem to be anything/enough that satisfied the sig cov/reliable/independent trilemma. As it is a tour that is still some significant length of time away, I feel draftifying it is most advisable - given its pre-occurence coverage, I'd suspect it will gain notability when it starts. As @Nathaanguunn: is the only content contributor, a draftify seems reasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NTOUR. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:46, 4 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. Sandstein 08:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank J. Vondersaar

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

Non-notable politician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. reddogsix (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously fails the conventional WP:NPOL notability criteria, never having actually been elected. There must be a lot of candidates who have run 9 times and not succeeded, so I suspect notability on grounds of unelectability probably isn't sufficient. Neither his military career nor his accusations seem to warrant notability either. Obviously he is well sourced, so it is the additional criteria that are the deciding factor, and they don't seem satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perennial candidate who doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The sources seem to be either obituaries or official primary election results. SportingFlyer talk 21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more sources. Some are trivial mentions, but not all. To Nosebagbear's point, one of those sources places him as the loosing-est candidate in history. That, plus the fact that he was a major party's nominee, and the various sources, makes him notable. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looked through the sourcing and there's still not really a lot there - plus major party nominees are not presumptively notable. SportingFlyer talk 03:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Running for Congress nine times and losing doesn't even hold a candle to the 95 unsuccessful election candidacies of John Turmel, the worldwide Guinness Book of Records holder for this particular flavour of political notoriety — and even for Turmel, the notability clincher isn't really the candidacies themselves, so much as the fact that Guinness singled him out for the distinction. This article, however, is far too dependent on primary sources that cannot carry notability at all, such as raw tables of election results and archived versions of his own self-published campaign website, and the amount of reliable source coverage actually being shown is nowhere near enough to actually deem him special for having run less than 10 per cent as often as the world record holder did. Being a perennially-losing perennial candidate is not a notability criterion under NPOL, but nothing here is compellingly detailed or compellingly sourced for the purposes of making this one special. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all the coverage is what we would expect in such races, and we have clearly decided more coverage than that is needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don’t know what to say here. Frank was a very colorful figure and is well-remembered around here, he comes off in print as kind of paranoid and crazy but he was actually extremely friendly and volunteered for everything under the sun. As for general notability he does seem kind of borderline. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Subject lacks notability. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alaska is one of the smallest states, by population, and that may contribute to the dearth on WP:SIGCOV on this perennial candidate. He gets few out of state mentions, for example, in a Washington Post political blog about the year;s worst candidate websites The awful campaign Web sites of 2014, bu tit's a sentence here, a sentence there. Even in Alaska, there wasn't much INDEPTH coverage of him, mostly obits and WP:MILL campaign coverage. This obit in the [Anchorage Daily News] makes him out as a sort of novelty item.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enwebb (talk • contribs)

Otis Delaporte

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

I do not see evidence that this person meets WP:NBASE nor WP:NGRIDIRON. Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of coverage of subject in reliable third-party sources to establish general notability. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head college football coaches are generally considered notable and the coverage clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 1 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Danger

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC for album recordings. Band does not have its page, only mentioned in page Amen Dunes which is another band where the artist worked on (and the artist doesn't have its own article, just redirect to the band). There is no significant media coverage regarding this album if any at all, and it's completely unreferenced (note the Allmusic link isn't really a reference in my opinion, and along with its 8/10 rating there is only one user review). I thought this would fit into CSD A9 since the page doesn't state why the album is significant, and the artist doesn't have its own article, but it was declined by an admin. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 12:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 12:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 12:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93 _{→Message me. ←} 13:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an AllMusic review, not a user review; there are others from Uncut, Spin, PopMatters and Gothamist. Peter James (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; extremely badly written and only has one source. Not notable. ~SML • TP 21:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't badly written, it's just a stub. Only one source is in the article but I've mentioned others. Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Peter James (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: Look at the date, at the time I wrote that it was. ~SML • TP 15:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a keep actually – Peter James is right about there being reviews from Uncut [27] and PopMatters [28], and a semi-review at Spin [29]... along with AllMusic that's three and a half good reviews, plus another one from UK local newspaper The Birmingham Post & Mail [30] which means this quite possibly was reviewed in other music magazines like Q and Mojo. Richard3120 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s the case, why don’t you add them? ~SML • TP 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do – it's just that I'm literally getting ready to travel to the airport in half an hour. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Richard3120 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without an article for the band, this album article should be deleted per policy at CSD #A9. If an admin denied an A9 request, perhaps the policy was read by someone (maybe me) incorrectly, though A9 does say "...where none of the contributing recording artists has an article" and I would assume that to mean the BAND. Since we have an argument above that the album could be keep-able, perhaps the band's article needs to be resurrected first. There was one that was deleted in 2007. If that is not done, the album could be mentioned as an item of pre-history at Amen Dunes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was going to create an article on it, but I found very little sources that violate my personal minimum of atleast five source in a page, most I could find was only talking about the album. ~SML • TP 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, I'm guessing that A9 was declined due to the other criterion, "musical recording... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". My assumption is that with a couple of reliable sources already included, and including a member that went on to form a notable band, that was enough to invalidate an A9 speedy. I must admit that an A9 was also my first thought, when I saw the artist didn't have their own article. But there are a couple of gig reviews of Inouk around the time of the album's release, and there are retrospective mentions of Inouk in articles about Amen Dunes. I agree that even a stub about the band would strengthen the case to keep this album's article. Richard3120 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The newly added reviews show that this album has received enough critical attention to meet WP:NALBUM. — Newslinger talk 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the album is now well-sourced, but the band doesn’t have a page, and if someone creates one, it would be badly sourced. Everything I could find was talking about the album, not the artist. ~SML • TP 15:30, 27 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) 02:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peter James, Richards3120 and Newslinger. Satisfies GNG and NALBUM. Being notable, the album necessarily is both significant and important, and the article clearly indicates this. James500 (talk) 15:01, 5 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Dare

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

WP:BLP1E (about a 4 year old in a terrorist video) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E Question - Nom is no doubt correct about BLP1E applying (there is later coverage but its only about what the kid was doing because it was him (hospital appointment, movements etc) rather than because they had any unique importance). However, since we don't have a specific article for that video, would we still delete it? Or do we make a conventional notability judgement call as if BLP1E didn't apply in lieu of having an event article? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP1E doesn't require an article about the event to delete a biographical article, especially in cases such as this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean it is just a kid. Why would it be a good idea to keep an article on a child known (barely) for one thing that is not even notable? WP:BLP1E frowns on these kinds of creations.Nobody's Keeper (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Nobody's Keeper (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete The subject is less than 10-years-old. This is one of the most egregious violations of BLP policy that I have seen. Even at that, the coverage is just not substantial enough to justify an article. If Nazi propaganda had shown a similarly aged child killing Jews in 1943, and the subject had been dead since 1985, I still would advocate delete if it was in just one film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 4 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. Sandstein 08:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Triggering

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable - fails WP:EVENT, specifically duration of coverage, diversity of sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:33, 26 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 10:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:EVENT for lack of lasting effect, geographical scope, significant coverage, and duration of coverage. Most of the coverage has been in unreliable far-right sources like The Blaze, Twitchy, and Breitbart, thereby failing WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:DIVERSE.- Mr X 🖋 12:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrX. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on the reasoning of Vami IV and Jujutsuan in the last AfD. This article meets WP:GNG, and this Newsweek source also helps establish notability.desmay (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Poor sources. The Newsweek one is fine, but it's a relatively brief mention from a few weeks after the event. The rest are either strictly local, or unusable political gossip and blogs. If this had any lasting impact it hasn't been explained very well. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suggest that the reliable sources are used to create a paragraph within College Republicans#Activities. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:36, 6 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) 20:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Soul

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD nr.3. PROD was removed. I will give an extended explaination why this article should be deleted. There are no reliable sources, only YouTube and Myspace. The article states they won awards, but there are no sources to verify this. A quick google search finds no proof of this. Also there is some minor POV this like inspired other artists while not having sources for this and it fails WP:NMUSIC » Shadowowl | talk 15:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per nom. Little-to-no references found in a google search; article has 5 citations, 4 of which are YouTube videos, 1 of which is an expired/archived link. Subject fails WP:NBAND. --HunterM267 ^talk 16:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND. Lack of reliable source coverage to prove any sort of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, since the ECMA award has come up, I don't believe it is enough to establish notability under WP:NBAND criteria #8. Since the band in question is Canadian, a Juno Award would suffice, but the ECMA is not in that caliber. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Hoping the 3rd time is the charm with regards to AFD? Group has generated enough coverage in Europe, especially in the Scandivain Countries, as shown here, [31], to be included here at Wikipedia. In the future, before nominating, please do “Before” nominating for deletion. In addition, they have won a ECMA Award which gives credit for Notability as shown here [32]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two prior AfD discussions were speedy closed due to an insufficient explanation by the nom. No other !votes or comments were made, so I'd hardly say a consensus was reached. Further, the first external link you provided yielded no results for me that were explicitly about the band, by my looking. Could you link to some direct references? As for the other source you provided, re the ECMA award - the article is about another band (Sloan) - this subject is only mentioned as one of the performers at the event once - not as having won it. Do you have more references to support your claims? --HunterM267 ^talk 19:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Shoessss, the link doesn't show the band won an award, it just states that they performed at the awards ceremony. The ECMA web site only shows that they were nominated in one category [33] (the Bucky Adams memorial Award), which they didn't win. So they've been nominated five times for a regional award without winning: they've won awards in an even more niche award ceremony, but these latter awards aren't notable. Richard3120 (talk) 21:21, 30 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) 01:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here passes any of WP:NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria — no, they have not won an ECMA, and even if they had the ECMAs aren't major enough to pass NMUSIC's award criterion by themselves if they were the only notability claim being made, and the "African Nova Scotian Music Association Awards" are even less noteworthy than the ECMAs. The awards criterion goes to national awards on the level of the Junos or the Polaris, not to every single regional music award that exists. So the only NMUSIC clause actually in play here is #1, but the "references" here are the band's own MySpace page and a bunch of YouTube videos, not reliable sources for the purposes of meeting NMUSIC #1. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech–Tulane football rivalry

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

These founding members of the SEC have met a total of 50 times and regularly played each other in the first half of the 20th century, but there's no notability between these two to consider them "rivals". Sewanee was a founding member of the SEC but they aren't rivals with the likes of Kentucky, Florida, Alabama or Auburn. Tulane does have a legit rivalry with in-state former SEC foe LSU and a good case could also be made for Ole Miss being a Tulane rival also. However, the history between Georgia Tech and Tulane doesn't compare to the history between Tulane-LSU and Tulane-Ole Miss. There's no indication that this ever was a rivalry, as opposed to just a regular conference game. Apart from being geographically located in the southern United States and being founding members of the SEC, these schools have little in common. Therefore these schools aren't legit "rivals" and this page should be deleted. CalebHughes (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Wikipedia doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. A rivalry existed, and the passage of time doesn't mean it never did. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source isn't enough, and nothing much has turned up from searches of archives. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 3 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches don't turn up significant coverage of this series as a traditional rivalry. Nor do my searches reveal any other basis for arguing that this was either a traditional rivalry or a highly notable non-rivalry series. Among other things, there is no geographic nexus, no trophy, and competitiveness is low (Ga. Tech leads 37 wins to 13). Also, and while the teams have met 50 times, there appears to have been only one minor marquee match-up between the programs: 1956 (#3 vs #15). No other ranked match-up, no upsets of ranked opponents, no matches in the pre-poll era where both teams were dominating figures in Southern football. I'm open to changing my mind if better evidence is presented, but I'm not finding enough to warrant a stand-alone rivalry article. Cbl62 (talk) 05:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [34] offers a pretty good history and is already a reference in the article, but there's not a whole lot else in current media. I think the best coverage would be in archives from the 50s an 60s when Tech and Tulane were big deals in the SEC. By my time as a student at Tech in the late 1970s it was more of a traditional opponent than a real rivalry (as opposed to Auburn or Notre Dame, who still were), and since Tech left the SEC in 1964 it had declined in importance. Apart from the Advocate article I can't get a real sense of whether it really ran to rivalry. Acroterion (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I spent some time going through Newspapers.com looking for older sources treating this as a rivalry and came up empty. (Very different from Auburn-Tulane searches which turned up abundant rivalry discussions.) For me, the paucity of marquee match-ups (1 minor marquee match-up out of 50 games) is especially telling. As for the 2014 source, it struck me that there was no discussion of close games or traditional rivalry elements; instead, the article strained to "find" a rivalry based on minor factors (a 1939 co-championship year in which they did not play each other, Tulane basketball and baseball coaches who are Ga Tech alumni) and similarities (urban settings, good academics) between the schools. Cbl62 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on personal anecdotal evidence, I'm not seeing much either. During my time it was an excuse for a road trip to NO and a night on the town. During the 50s and 60s Tech was much more concerned with other teams as rivals. Acroterion (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly there is a history of play between the two teams, but I don't see any evidence (sources) to support it as a "rivalry" at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. Not enough points made in my opinion for deletion, but they're still valid. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 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 keep. As with the majority of the other rivalry AfDs, a strong consensus based on the various sources provided indicates a strong Keep (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–Florida football rivalry

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

Auburn and Florida have had several really good games through the years, but that alone does not make this series a rivalry. In addition to them not being permanent cross-divisional opponents, there's no indication that this is or was anything more than an average SEC game between two teams that only occurs once every several years (except if they meet in the SEC Championship Game, which has happened only once). Auburn isn't on the same level as Florida State, Georgia or even Tennessee as far as Florida's football rivalries are concerned. Similarly, Florida isn't on the same level as Alabama, Georgia or LSU as far as Auburn's rivalries are concerned. A Google search will turn up a couple of articles talking about good games between the two, but lack of animosity between the schools and their fans as well as any compelling evidence that is anything more than an average, regular SEC game convince me that this page needs to be deleted. CalebHughes (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This nomination is written entirely in the present tense. As noted in a similar AfD, Wikipedia doesn't exist to document things in the present moment, and the title doesn't imply currency. Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is well sourced noting a rivalry. Corky 23:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Acroterion. Moreover, I am concerned that Caleb's recent spate of nine AfDs (directed at storied rivalries in Southern football history) may be motivated by retaliatory intent. Caleb recently created several rivalry articles that were either tagged for notability or AfD'd. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UTEP–UTSA football rivalry, Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry. The mass nomination of historic Southern football rivalry articles borders on pointy (WP:POINT) editing IMO. @CalebHughes: Can you clarify the motivation behind these mass nominations, particularly in relation to challenges to your own recent work creating rivalry articles? Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There may not be another rivalry with more marquee match-ups (games between ranked opponents or games upsets of ranked opponents) in the last half century. At least 22 marquee match-ups since 1968: 2007 (Auburn upset #4 Florida); 2006 (#11 Auburn upset #2 Florida); 2001 (Auburn upset #1 Florida); 2000 (#10 vs #19); 1997 (#6 vs. #7); 1996 (#1 vs. #16); 1995 (#3 vs. #7); 1994 (#6 Auburn upset #1 Florida); 1993 (#19 Auburn upset #4 Florida); 1990 (#4 vs. #15); 1989 (#12 vs. #19); 1987 (#6 vs #10); 1986 (Florida upset #5 Auburn); 1985 (#2 vs. #6); 1984 (#11 vs. #13); 1983 (#4 vs. #5); 1982 (Florida upset #19 Auburn); 1977 (Auburn upset #18 Florida); 1974 (#5 vs. #11); 1973 (Florida upset #19 Auburn); 1969 (#7 vs. #17); 1968 (Auburn upset #20 Florida). Cbl62 (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article relates many a Florida season (1994, 2001, 2006) has been ruined by an Auburn field goal. There's also lots of past lore, like Spurrier's field goal and Wes Chandler being attacked by the eagle, and Auburn being Florida's first ever conference opponent (in 1912). Only recently has the rivalry heat died down with Auburn and Miami, and only quite recently with Auburn. Cake (talk) 00:56, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete The article sources a lot of games (in one case the same AP article about the same game printed in three different newspapers), some number of which made a splash at the time due to upsets. This does not add up to a rivalry, and I see no reason to believe in one unless some reasonable number of these specifically use that word or some synonym, which is not what I see. And the obvious rationale behind nominating rivalry articles is that too many of them seem to exist only in the imagination of some editor. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: If you want articles discussion this as a rivalry, they are abundant. See, e.g., [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Cbl62 (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Four unambiguous cites added to lede (3 AP, 4 various decades), now making the rivalry claim overt over the noise from the well-cited body. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of sources to support the claim that this is a rivalry. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62 and all above. Easily meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl, he has presented numerous sources and reasons that this is/was a rivalry. I also agree with Cbl that this is bordering on WP:POINT with retaliatory intent. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this doesn't belong in AFD, it belongs in nominations for a "featured list" -- great job assembling this!--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A source search shows this is clearly referred to as a rivalry over multiple reliable, independent sources. SportingFlyer talk 09:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources show its a significant rivalry. Football rivalries are particular huge in the American south. JC7V-constructive zone 20:51, 6 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. Sandstein 08:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Insight

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

This album doesn't seem to pass the notability criteria for albums, nor does it pass our general notability guidelines. There just aren't enough significant mentions. Heck, people can't even agree if it was released in 2014 or in 2015. Thus, this article should be deleted, as we just can't verify the material in it. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 16:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it was 2015. And the album reached no. 8 on the Billboard Blues Chart [42]. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily mean its notable. Since it didn't seem to appear on the Billboard 200 (which would mean that it is automatically notable per WP:NMUSIC (see this for national record charts)) and does not seem to have significant coverage, it is not currently notable. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 19:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I was about to add that a specialist chart doesn't necessarily make for a pass of WP:NALBUM by itself, but I lost mobile reception temporarily. The fact it charted though might indicate that there are sources out there in specialist jazz publications. Richard3120 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I don't know if this is the whole chart, but the Billboard website only shows a top 15 for the Blues Chart – that wouldn't indicate that this chart is very important or that many sales are needed, if it can only stretch to fifteen places, which would sway me towards delete or redirect. And the article for the Marcus King Band itself is virtually a WP:COPYVIO from the press release cited here on the band's own website [43]... it may be that both articles need to go. Richard3120 (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's more coverage than I can find. All I've seen is passing mentions in articles about the band or the person. Our article about the band covers the release date and chart placing, so all we'd be losing is the track listing, which is relatively unimportant for an encyclopedia. Mortee (talk) 00:16, 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) 01:43, 1 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) 23:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbtack Jack

(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) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find anything to support WP:GNG from the article or otherwise - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:11, 24 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) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing shows any notability standard is met. Routine coverage of a wrestler who never made it to the big time.Sandals1 (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league wrestler. Moab12 (talk) 16:52, 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dillsburg Banner

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

This newspaper is not notable; I could only find brief mentions of it from local news providers. Thus, because the brief mentions cannot satisfy our general notability guidelines and are not up to our standard of verifiability, the article should be deleted. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 19:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is mentioned in offline media. For example, the York daily record ran an article on it. TheKing44 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any more sources besides that? Also, you should cite your sources in the article. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 19:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're still looking for the article. Offline articles are harder to find. TheKing44 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In this era when Facebook & Friends are combating dezinformatsiia with links to Wikipedia pages of established publications, we need to make doubly sure to be providing that information. IAR keep. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: The thing is, the paper doesn't seem to be online; I cannot find any of its articles. Thus, having a Wikipedia entry wouldn't much help fight against disinformation. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 18:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles here: http://dillsburgbanner.net/news.htm TheKing44 (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 23:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. We do not create articles built entirely on Yelp listings. That is all we have here, and there is no sign that this newspaper meets the notability guidelines for papers at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 31 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) 01:35, 1 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. Sandstein 08:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chet Douglas

(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) 23:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Wow, with such a long article and so many accomplishments I was sure I would be able to find something, but there was nothing.★Trekker (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A quick scan gave me these two that point towards notability - PWI Insider, prowrestling.net Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching under his real name instead of ring name brought up plenty of RS that discussed both his suspension and release. However I am unsure if just these two instances are enough to meet GNG. Nothing is really in depth other than reporting this news. I cannot find any thing offer more details than just this basic information. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:16, 25 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) 01:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor league wrestler. Moab12 (talk) 16:53, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Skyfire

AfDs for this article:

(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) 21:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although one source in the article is a book, which I cannot tell if its a passing mention, or more in depth, I cannot find anything else to support notability. Looking at the other AfD I am not really sure why it was kept the first time, I see no policy based arguments to keep which would translate to no consensus. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:00, 25 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) 01:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable wrestler who didn't make it to a major promotion. Coverage is routine and doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league wrestler. Moab12 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete for sheer lack of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 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. Mz7 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 NFL quarterbacks win–loss records

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

This list lacks notability per our guidelines (WP:LISTN), as it is not discussed "as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Year-by-year win/loss records for NFL quarterbacks are not a common topic, and this falls clearly into WP:NOTSTATS. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this one is a little too granular detail for our encyclopedia. Try another wiki??--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. A single year's win-loss record is of interest only to the most rabid of fans. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate the detail taken to create the page, I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. There are sport websites out there dedicated to sharing these stats and information. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable stat for a specific season. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it seems a shame to delete such a well-constructed article, this is too narrow a statistical scope for our encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a lot of good info, however it is an accessibility nightmare. It also has gif icons! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer talk 09:37, 4 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. Essentially, nobody except the nominator wants to delete the article. The decision to merge or redirect can be done outside of the scope of AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish supercentenarians

AfDs for this article:

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

The article list of Polish supercentenarians should be deleted because it contains almost no encyclopedic information, after you remove the list of Polish emigrant supercentenarians which itself violates at least three major Wikipedia polices.

The list of Polish emigrant supercentenarians clearly violates WP:BLP, verifiability, and no original research policies. The claim that Gustav Gerneth, born in the German Empire on land that became part of Poland after WW2, is a "Polish emigrant" is wholly unsubstantiated by his corresponding source. After extensive searching, I could locate no source stating that Gerneth ever was a citizen of Poland and later moved back to Germany. This is clearly a major violation of WP:BLP. There is scant evidence that any of the people on this list ever emigrated from the country of Poland to somewhere else or were Polish nationals, so for nearly every person on this list an unverifiable claim is being made. To say that these people "emigrated" from Poland due to having been born on territory that later became part of the country of Poland and were once Polish nationals, is clearly original research, with no reliable sources backing up these assertions.

After the list of Polish emigrant supercentenarians is removed, which it needs to be, the article lists only four individuals, one of whom has no source. Another deceased claimant has no source for their death date or voivodeship of death. There have been thousands of supercentenarians, so there is nothing notable about these one 110-year-old, two 111-year-old, and one 112-year-old women. The oldest Polish woman and man, living and ever, are already listed on the List of oldest people by country page, so nothing of value is lost if this page is deleted or gained by reading it. Wikipedia is not a memorial (WP:Memorial), so there is no need to keep a record of the other three young Polish supercentenarians on this list. Any future Polish supercentenarians of actually notable ages would be recorded on the List of European supercentenarians page and etc.

The innumerable errors in this article also strongly speaks to how little this article offers in value because if readers thought it a valuable source of information, they would have taken the time to fix it or better yet, have done it right the first time. Instead, it's a pointless backwater article where shoddy information gets thoughtlessly slapped on from time to time. This page should be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the previous AfD noted that the list could be focused down to people born in the territory of modern day Poland. Gustav Gerneth, for example, was, per the source, born in Stettin, i.e. Szczecin. Given these criteria of inclusion, his appearance on the list is right. The introduction to the article should make the criteria more clear, and the 'emigrants' section should be renamed or have a note above - for the aritcle's purposes it means someone born in what is now Poland but who is living, or died, outside that region. That should dispense with concerns about WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:OR, given most of this is already sourced. At worst, the article could be renamed "List of supercentenarians born in modern-day Poland", with appropriate redirects, or expanded to include lists with alternative criteria, such as having lived in modern-day Poland itself at some point, or having held Polish citizenship (though these would be harder to source). "The other three young Polish supercentenarians" is amusingly oxymoronic, but "pointless backwater article where shoddy information gets thoughtlessly slapped on" is unreasonable. Mortee (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. The vast majority of the article is inherently corrupted by major violations of numerous Wikipedia policies. Many individuals in this article, such as Gustav Gerneth, never had any ties to Poland and it is therefore a false claim to include them in this article because this article inherently is claiming all of these individuals had or have deep ties to Poland (deep enough to warrant Wikipedia claiming they are permanently tied to the country after being born in countries other then Poland). We cannot change the article to "List of supercentenarians born in modern-day Poland" because none of these people were actually born in modern-day Poland, which didn't exist when they were born. It would be another false claim.

By age, none of the four Polish women on this list is actually notable. There have been countless thousands and thousands of supercentenarians in the world, so there is nothing exceptional or encyclopedic about their ages, other then that the eldest is the oldest validated Polish person ever, which is information already displayed variously in multiple well-maintained articles, one of which lists the oldest currently living and oldest ever woman and man of many different countries, including Poland. In addition to all the other errors I have noted, did you realize that the source for the only living Polish woman on this list is outdated, which means she needs to be pulled off unless a recent reliable source is located and that the note section of the emigrant list ranking is out of order? This is a backwater article that provides no useful encyclopedic information that cannot be found in other articles - that's reality, not an insult. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be re-worded so as not to wrongly label any one Polish or an emigrant. Readers from each country will surely want to know about the oldest people for their country. People born in the area currently covered by the modern territory is one sane metric to include, as long as it's explained in the article and not misrepresented by the title. We also shouldn't exclude countries just because their current oldest people aren't world-beating—almost by definition, that changes. Mortee (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of European supercentenarians per nom. I'm not convinced http://supercentenarian-research-foundation.org/ is a good source here. The (very few) entries can be discussed on the European page; there is certainly a problem including Germans who were born and died in Germany on this page as a result of territorial changes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I think outright deletion makes much more sense then a redirect because the only person in this article old enough to be listed on the List of European supercentenarians is German woman Augusta Holtz, listed in this article as a "Polish emigrant", whom left Europe for the U.S. many decades before Poland was created. Nothing in this article is worth redirecting. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:19, 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) 00:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of European supercentenarians. Polish is too specific for such a short list. No reason for a separate article/list. Redditaddict69 (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mortee. Drunk in Paris (talk) 18:40, 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.