Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 August 28 August >

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 no consensus. While I think that my previous relist has been amply justified by the spirited discussion that followed, I also feel that at this point it is clear that there is absolutely no consensus on the possible notability of this club. Another relist is excessive, so I am ending this now. Randykitty (talk) 08:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C.

[edit]
Cray Valley Paper Mills F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG trumps WP:FOOTYN for club notability. With the deletion of Dontan on GNG grounds despite having played in the national cup FOOTY:N can no longer be used to save articles. Cray are a team that play in a regional 9th division football league. In 99 years they have never progressed past the prelim round of the FA Cup. The FA Vase is not the national cup so their only 2nd round appearance is irrelevant. The only thing I found specifically about Cray was a loan goalkeeper headbutting the post 3 times before punching it. Dougal18 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per clear consensus from numerous AfDs that playing in the FA Cup or FA Vase is sufficient for notability for English football clubs (most recent AfD here). The Dontam outcome is relevant to Thai clubs but not here. All clubs at this level in England have articles (possibly bar a couple promoted to this level at the end of last season that haven't been created yet), so deleting this one would lead to inconsistency in the information Wikipedia provides. Number 57 18:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those were decided before the Dontan AFD. To suggest different standards for different countries is discriminatory. To claim that the Vase (a cup for 9th division or lower clubs) grants notability is ridic and ignores GNG. Your keep argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and forgets that if one brick is removed then the whole wall can go with it.Dougal18 (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, this is not a discrimination issue - as I have said repeatedly in recent discussions, the cutoff point for club notbility is going to be different in different countries - for example, playing in the Coupe de France could not be used as a notabililty factor for French clubs as over 8,000 clubs enter the competition. Secondly, you seem to be labouring under the misconception that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is always a problematic argument, when it is perfectly valid to use it to ensure consistency in Wikipedia coverage. Number 57 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just because the FA Cup has a tenth of the teams it's a case of "welcome in lads" whereas for their French counterparts it's "non"? Consistency can be ensured by a mass deletion of clubs that don't meet GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57. LTFC 95 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57/existing consensus. Nzd (talk) 18:29, 11 Augustc2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know if Dougal18 is on a witch hunt, but there is historic consensus that these lower clubs have enough notability that qualifies under WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Number 57.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am aware of consensus &c, but I do find it interesting - and depressing - that "Number 57" so unquestionably accepts the Anglosphere Only Movement. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appearing in the FA Cup doesn't guarantee notability; but it certainly doesn't mean that they're not notable. I'm not convinced all teams in the Southern Counties East Football League are independently notable; a redirect to that page would definitely be better than deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the Dontan AfD was probably correctly decided based on what sources are easily available or searchable on the internet (I know we had someone who spoke Thai, but after some digging I think they were probably notable due to television coverage.) I do not think it means that WP:FOOTYN is irrelevant, but rather WP:FOOTYN is a presumption that can be overcome if WP:GNG is unavailable. In this case, steps 9 (and even 10) of the English non-league are quite well documented in local sources. Furthermore nominator may simply have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as per their nomination here, claiming a "bias" towards English football: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FA_Cup_semi-finals SportingFlyer talk 12:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment: Given that our policy states that clubs should meet the GNG, why in the hell doesn't anyone look at the sources and try to establish it via that? I see basically no comment on sourcing here and no indication that anyone has even bothered to do a search. Please stop this insistence that FOOTYN is an SNG, and actually look at the sources and how this particular club stacks up. @SportingFlyer: per your comment, note that "local coverage" usually isn't enough to establish notability via the GNG, topics usually require national or at least regional level coverage to meet the GNG (small local papers etc are usually discounted in notability discussions). All I could find was limited local sourcing: [1] or sourcing that isn't exactly about the team [2][3]. I'm curious if anyone can find anything better, because if this were any other topic, people wouldn't be screaming 'keep' or 'speedy keep' based on the sourcing I am seeing. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think FOOTYN exists out of nowhere, especially the "Step 10 club" rule? I'm considering "local coverage" to be British newspapers, including ones dedicated to non-league football. There are and have been numerous non-league directories published about English football, their histories are recorded in databases specific to English football, groundhoppers consistently discuss these clubs in blogs ([4]), and local papers consistently write articles about results. They are well documented as a group through routine coverage, and no original research is needed to write these articles (unlike, possibly, Dontan). A Google search of my own brings up 48,000 results including a Google "Matches, News and Standings" of their most recent F.A. Cup score. Obviously not all of those sources will show notability, but that only encompasses online sources for a club that has been around since 1919. SportingFlyer talk 05:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst WP:FOOTYN is not a SNG, the English club rule is a de facto one and has been consensus for well over a decade. The reason it's not an actual SNG is because there's nowhere to record it – it was listed in WP:NCORP in 2006, but was removed for being overly-specific, and WP:NSPORT doesn't cover teams. In the absence of an appropriate guideline, it has been recorded at FOOTYN for reference. Number 57 07:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be generally useful as a 'rule of thumb', but it fails as a rule of thumb if it is so open as to be often contrary to the GNG. You can't argue that a team that has no sourcing to meet the GNG should be declared notable based on this arbitrary criteria. That's what SNGs are for, and if you want FOOTYN elevated to one, run an RfC on WP:Village pump (policy) (I doubt that such an RfC would succeed). Still no one has pointed out how this club comes even close to meeting the general notability guideline. SportingFlyer accurately states that database histories, blogs, and routine match result listings are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Shoehorning unsourcable articles on low level clubs onto the encyclopedia is a direct violation of WP:NOT. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree it's contrary to the GNG, though. I never stated they are insufficient to demonstrate notability. The club is mentioned in at least number of articles on kentishfootball.co.uk, kentsportsnews.com, kentonline.co.uk, nonleague.today, thenonleaguefootballpaper.com, and the FA's web site [www.thefa.com/news/2015/Oct/31/fa-vase-round-up-31-october-2015] (not a primary source, even though the club is a member of the association). Local sources are no less reliable than national sources, either. There are self-published sources which are more reliable than you would see for a normal corporation (since they're clearly not sponsored) such as [5] or [6], as the writers aren't promoting products randomly, a normal WP:NCORP concern. Their statistics are noted on several different websites [7]. I'm sure I have information on them in a book that's in storage, likely demonstrated by the bibliography [8] is a good place to demonstrate non-league football teams get written about a lot. Remember when you used to buy independently written league guides and directories for non-league football? This is just interesting to me and not a part of my argument, but they even have a Vietnamese Wikipedia article [9].
Furthermore, I agree Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a collection of indiscriminate information, but this article has nothing to do with either of those concerns. The article is validly prosed, as opposed to being in a list like "Cray Valley Paper Mills | Badgers Stadium" - and this isn't your local Sunday league side that's completely un-source-able. The Dontan article was interesting - and as I noted, it may have passed WP:GNG if one could access Thai television sources, even though I couldn't get it over the line. SportingFlyer talk 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those cited sources are even close to being a source that is significant, independent and reliable to the degree required by WP:GNG. Based on the complete lack of sources demonstrated, and a lack of any that I could find, I am forced to change 'comment' to 'delete'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, I searched in the british newspaper archive but I can't find anything significant there either.[10] — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per N57 and prior AFD consensus. GiantSnowman 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment I have not looked for sources for this club. However I hope that the closer takes note of the quality of the argument presented; the vast majority of these comments do not make a true argument for notability, citing WP:FOOTYN which most definitely is not WP:NFOOTY. It's important to remember why SNGs exist: as a shortcut not a replacement to proving that an article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:N. It is presumed that if an article topic passes SNG that there will be enough sources available to satisfy GNG. I don't have time at the moment to evaluate the sourcing offered by SportingFlyer but appreciate their efforts to make a GNG argument rather than relying on a project guideline in an AfD. If footy fans feel that FOOTYN should be more than it is, at minimum I would think about getting community consensus to incorporating AfD results into WP:OUTCOMES if not WP:NFOOTY. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than the "vast majority", only two of the seven editors who have so far stated support for keeping the article have referenced WP:FOOTYN. However, you are probably right about trying to get this listed in WP:OUTCOMES – given the clarity of consensus over many years, hopefully this shouldn't be too difficult. I think the only reason it hasn't been done already is that there haven't been any serious issues until the White Ensign AfD. Number 57 19:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have cited your original comment, which doesn't directly cite FOOTYN (likely on purpose given the close at Dontan)or not, see below, but clearly contains the same content and argument as FOOTYN. I'd also like to point out that arguing that "all clubs at this level have articles" and "deleting this one would lead to inconsistency" is a clear violation of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite FOOTYN in the White Ensign AfD despite it being before the Donatan one, so please don't make bad faith assumptions. Thanks, Number 57 20:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: YOU added the 'step 6' criteria to FOOTYN during the White Ensign AfD... Apparently in violation to that page's own hatnote indicating that the page should not be changed without discussion at WT:FOOTY. It wasn't there for you to cite in your !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (2nd nomination) at the time you made your !vote. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite FOOTYN in this AfD or this AfD or this AfD either, despite it theoretically being possible to use both in favour of deletion or keeping based on the lack of or history of cup participation. All I'm asking is for you to withdraw your bad faith comment. Thanks, Number 57 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its not bad faith, I never said that it would be untoward for you not to cite FOOTYN. However, it is clear that your original comment, regardless whether it cites FOOTYN or not, still makes direct reference to the content of FOOTYN. This accusation of bad faith seems little more than a distraction from the point of the conversation. You commented above indicating that Barkeep49's comment was invalid because users weren't directly citing FOOTYN, yet they were citing you, and you were parroting the content included at FOOTYN (that you yourself added). I am seriously considering an RfC to rewrite WP:NTEAM. Instead of 'not applying to teams' and pointing to the GNG, it should simply and clearly state that teams must meet the General notability guideline, and that notability is WP:NOT INHERITED from leagues that teams play in. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You inferred that I deliberately avoided mentioning FOOTYN because of the outcome of the Dontan AfD, which suggests that I am attempting to Wikilawyer.
Also, my addition to FOOTYN was mainly around clarifying that playing at step 6 was deemed to be the cut-off point for English clubs. The part about playing in national cups (which is what I based my argument on above) was already there. Number 57 21:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I already added clarification to my comment above. Please drop it. Regarding 'cutoff points' Please read WP:NRV. SNGs (or indeed notability essays by wikiprojects) are not 'alternatives' to the GNG, they should represent shortcuts that indicate what is likely to be notable under the GNG. This is why all the parts of WP:NSPORT say "presumed notable" rather than "inherently notable". If a topic that meets one of 'cutoff points' of WP:NFOOTY can be demonstrated to not have sourcing sufficient for WP:NRV or WP:GNG, it is not notable. However, it is difficult to demonstrate a negative in many cases, which is why cutoff points in our notability SNGs are generally chosen high, so that articles are not presumed to be notable when they are not, and we can generally avoid arguments about source searching. The cuttoff point chosen by FOOTYN, and the Wikiproject Football community generally, is too low, and has not been vetted by the wider community. A consensus on a series of AfDs frequented by football invested editors does not represent general consensus by the wider community, and can't be substituted for it to support the content of FOOTYN as a psuedo-SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not too low. For instance, in 2009, a step 11 (below the threshold!) was found to pass WP:GNG: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/St_Blazey_A.F.C.. I don't mind the guidelines being reformed, either — for instance the unsourced Wichita Jets passed an AfD (though they may be notable, the AfD was speedy kept because the nominator got the sport wrong.). SportingFlyer talk 22:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: your comment seems to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what the subject specific notability guidelines are supposed to do. They represent a cutoff point above which all topics should be notable, but do not represent a claim or argument that all topics below this point are not notable. Of course it is possible for players below the guidelines set out in WP:NFOOTY to be notable, they only have to pass the GNG. The same is true of clubs below step ten; if they meet the GNG they are notable. A good SNG on football clubs would pick a cuttoff point above which ALL clubs meet and exceed the minimum requirements of the GNG, and step ten certainly appears too low to meet that bar based on this and other AfDs that I have seen recently. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to endorse this explanation of what a SNG is and what purpose it should serve. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand my point, then, because I agree with you about the purpose of an SNG. My point is and continues to be the assumption Step 10 clubs pass WP:GNG is valid. SportingFlyer talk 07:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: You're right that you did not cite FOOTYN and lots of the people said per you. My original comment should have been clearer. My larger point remains. Your argument isn't policy based. It's an allusion to an WP:OUTCOMES type argument but since it's not in OUTCOMES, or any other place where there's been community scrutiny of the idea, the discussion here should be about whether Cary Valley Paper Mills FC meets GNG or doesn't. I haven't spent the time to look which is why I made a comment not a !vote but the lack of policy/source discussion at AfD struck me as unusual hence my comment to the closer. Speaking personally, I tend to take a pretty hardline view that the guidelines are what they are and am not a fan of exceptions, but do (generally speaking) support most efforts made to make those guidelines more inclusive. I'm an inclusionist at heart, if more on the narrow side in practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Like I said, the reason this has never been listed at OUTCOMES is because no-one has had a serious problem with it up until recently. As a result, the consensus of the AfDs in the clubs is all we have to go on to prove that editors believe this is an appropriate bar for notability. Like you, I would also say that I have a pretty hardline view on the guidelines and have nominated numerous articles for deletion, such as season articles that fails WP:NSEASONS or players that fail WP:NFOOTY, as well as clubs for deletion where they fail the threshold under discussion here (just take a look at my deleted contributions list to see how many football articles I've prodded or AfD'd). However, where a club article does pass what has always been the accepted threshold, I have put a lot of effort into improving them to ensure that they are worthwhile encyclopedia entries (this article only had two references before I rewrote it a couple of years ago). Number 57 21:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: From what I have seen based on the AfDs you previously provided, most teams within the criteria at FOOTYN are notable, the vast majority in fact. The problem is that there are some teams that only barely qualify once or twice to scrape into the bottom of things like the FA cup. White Ensign for example, hasn't actually yet played in the FA cup as far as I can tell,[11] and is only eligible and at step 6 because of the very recent Addition of Division One South to the Eastern Counties Football League. The club in this AfD has only ever played a few games each season in the preliminary round of the FA cup [12], and that hasn't garnered enough coverage to meet the GNG, from what I can tell. Can you accept that some clubs that scrape the bottom of the criteria at FOOTYN simply aren't notable enough to meet the GNG? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)'[reply]
In any set of articles that pass an SNG (or a consensus similar to one in this case), there are always going to be a small number skirting around the edges of GNG; as an example, we have articles on every person ever to be a member of the Knesset (most of which I have written). These people all pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, but there are a few, mostly people well down party lists and were brief replacements at the end of Knesset terms, who it would be difficult to show passed GNG and we are sometimes reliant on their listing on the Knesset website for any information about them.
When we have these clearly defined sets of articles, there is a question over whether it is beneficial to Wikipedia to have a complete set or not. I would argue strongly that it is beneficial to readers to ensure that we have the entire set of articles for completeness and consistency, and I disagree with the comments above about WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – these articles are not directory listings or a table of statistics, but instead properly written encyclopedia entries. This is also hardly an obscure article; it gets around 700 pageviews a month – this is potentially 700 readers who are going to miss out if this article is deleted. So ultimately, even if an article like this could be shown to fail WP:GNG, I'd invoke WP:IAR as I believe its presence is a net positive. Number 57 11:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. SNGs, especially in sports, are over-inclusive. I have seen athlete articles at AfC who would fail WP:GNG but pass the requisite SNG. SportingFlyer talk 15:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Fair enough if no one has had an issue until recently, but now that an issue has been raised, all the more reason to bring it to a wider audience to get a sense of true project consensus, I would suggest. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now have looked at sourcing for this club. Given that it's 100 years old I would have expected to find a plethora of options, including those of the type that would be found by the kind of British newspaper archives search ICPH did. Match reports are generally not considered the kind of significant sourcing needed to establish notability (but obviously can be used as sources in the article when notability has been established). The most significant sources lacked independence or were not reliable. I echo Masem's point below that I would hope for people to produce sources which satisfy WP:N/WP:GNG but for the time being have give a !vote to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. It does not meet the SNG WP:NFOOTY (not to be confused with the essay WP:FOOTYN). The vast majority of Google hits I see are mere fixture listings, and the rest don't seem sufficient to be deemed significant coverage. The refs currently in the article are to stats sites, non-independent sites, or trivial mentions. I'm not a football fan, so would welcome anyone that can point to significant coverage that I have overlooked. It would seem that if an AfD contests whether an article meets GNG, the response would be to identify the sources, not to echo essays or points not supported in established guidelines.—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, WP:NFOOTY is only for people. Recently, there are a number of match reports in secondary sources, such as their win over division 3 AFC Wimbledon, who wrote about the team they played, and their runs to recent cup finals in spite of the odds: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and in 2017 that was a historic cup win [19]. Not notable, but they also get mentioned in BBC Results, likely one reason why the Step 10 guideline exists. [20] Keep in mind this team has been around since 1919 - I haven't been able to source historical articles yet (due to time and inability to access sources), but I remain convinced significant coverage of this team exists. SportingFlyer [[User talk:SportingFlyer for thier efort in searching. |talk]] 07:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point regarding NFOOTY is that it is the only football SNG. Not meeting that, GNG needs to be met.—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two links from kentishfootball.co.uk are extensive enough to count towards one source of significant coverage, as GNG stteds that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The next two from afcwimbledon.co.uk are the AFC Wimbledon team itself writing about their own opponent, which doesn't seem independent. The following two from londonfa.com, an organization that "are responsible for developing and supporting all grassroots football in London." This is not independent. Regarding southlondonclub.co.uk, the site is a for a "local membership card to help support the best independent businesses in South London." Sounds promotional and not independent. I agree that the BBC trivial mention is not notable. Having reviewed these, I still mainitain my intitial !vote that GNG is not met.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Bagumba's assessment, and I'd like to commend SportingFlyer for their effort in searching and finding the kentishfootball sources. If anything else to establish 'multiple' can be found, I'm happy to change my !vote, but currently the kentishfootball sources are the only ones that meet GNG requirements. I'd normally like to see some sort of source reviewing the club itself, rather than just covering the actions during a game, but the best I could find is this single paragraph in the London Economic reviewing thier grounds. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the londonfa.com and afcwimbledon sources are independent enough. Still, their back-to-back finals appearances in the London Senior Cup final generated a lot of coverage - you could bet on the games and the finals were picked up on directory websites such as goal.com [21], Soccerway [22], and in France [23] and there are match reports in other independent newspapers as well [24]. I also disagree the South London Club is "promotional" because it's not written like an advertisement for the club or the card. I admit it's borderline, but it's a borderline keep. SportingFlyer talk 03:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes FOOTYN, has played in a national competition. Sources in this discussion seem to indicate GNG is satisfied, particularly considering the 100 year history of this club. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless if one thinks FOOTYN is valid as an SNG, I will point out that it presents the notability for clubs based on a rebuttable presumption (the standard for all SNGs), and Dougal here has apparently given a rebuttal (that there are no reasonable independent secondary sources from a reasonable search that they have done from their side) to that presumption. Anyone !voting strictly on saying it passes FOOTYN is not addressing that rebuttal. Those !votes need to show that valid sourcing that covers the topic in detail (not primary sources, not just box scores or stats) exist to some degree. It doesn't have to be the extent of all possible sourcing for the club, but it needs to demonstrate that the rebuttal challenge was wrong. That I do not see yet in this discussion - there's arm-waving sources exist but it's time for those actual sources to be shown and linked for review. --Masem (t) 13:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Masem: the nominating user has a history of actively deleting content including a couple short-term blocks over content which was removed, and has unsuccessfully nominated an article in the past accusing the project of a bias towards English football. Please note I'm not saying this deletion was necessarily in bad faith, but I am frustrated, however, that the very first step towards a discussion on how the Dontan AfD might affect WP:FOOTYN was by trying to "tear down the whole wall" citing discrimination as opposed to having a constructive discussion in another forum. Also, I've already linked several sources, including a couple showing the club was the lowest-ranked club (by league) in history to win a cup that has been contested since the 1880s. SportingFlyer talk 15:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to keep the issue of whether FOOTNY is legit or not out of it. We have to remember that we do not have inclusion guidelines, we have notability guidelines, and they have to show that a topic is covered by independent secondary sources (which clearly this doesn't right now) or can be presumed that it likely has been or will be with more in-depth searching, with that being a rebuttable challenge. A seemingly fair challenge has been raised, so it's time to show that there's source better sourcing out there. Remember that we're looking for secondary coverage - transformative information, not just repetition of facts or records. --Masem (t) 15:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on the sources. I've provided a number of sources so far showing the club receives consistent independent secondary coverage. SportingFlyer talk 15:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN and per significant previous consensus at AfD. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways - just because Dontan was deleted doesn't mean this should. Plus, as others have pointed out, it's not always an invalid argument. I wonder if anyone who cited that has actually read it. Besides, the sources are enough to meet GNG, so this is all moot anyway. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Specifically which sources? I have done a pretty thorough search myself and evaluated those provided by SportingFlyer (the only 'keep' editor here who seems interested in actually looking), and I and other have found them lacking. It isn't really possible to understand your claim that the GNG is met unless you provide the sources that demonstrate that. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Kentish Football and BBC sources, which by themselves should be enough to establish GNG, there's [25], [26], [27], [28], and several others. There appear to be more results when searching for "Cray Valley PM" than when using the full name. Smartyllama (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed above that the Kentish Football sources count as one. The BBC source is the shortest of short mentions, nothing more than a name listing among Kent's other football teams; very far from anything approaching 'significant' coverage. For the other sources you listed: #1 literally has a title, a synopsis from one of the team's websites directly copied, and a bunch of photos (not 'significant'). #2 is not about the team, it is a story about the goalkeeper pitching a hissy fit and contains next to no information about the team. #3 appears to be a short press release about a manager leaving the team, and again contains next to no information about the team (not 'significant'). Overall the information in these sources can't really be used to support anything about the club. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know two editors who I respect have said they're counting Kentish Football as one source - a stance I'm not entirely sure I agree with. However, my reservation was that I could find no sense of their editorial policy to make judgement about it being RS or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly not sure. I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also gave the benefit of the doubt on Kentish Football. I am not a football fan, and am not from the UK. Frankly, this is always a risk when people try to determine notability about a subject they are not very familiar with, in countries they are not experts on. It would be even worse if this was in a foreign language. Not all Google hits should be automatically considered to be an RS for Wikipedia purposes, and most are not significant coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually probably say that [this source] is the next best one after the Kentish Football sources, but even then seems to fail on being a solid WP:RS source (no idea what their editorial policy is or on how they choose what to cover). The article was written by Mike Green, presumably this Mike Green, who doesn't appear to have any connection to the team so is presumably independent. The article is about the team's performance during a cup final, but contains little to no information about the club otherwise (borderline significance IMO). Interested to hear your opinion on this one Bagumba. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and it probably doesn't matter anyway but what the heck) I can't see anything that would suggest that Mike Green, a Kent-based journalist, is the same person as Mike Green, a West Country-based footballer. Mike Green isn't exactly a rare name, so there's no compelling reason to believe they are the same person..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: No comment if it's reliable. As for the content, without more coverage of Cray's regular games, I'd be more inclined to think it might prove that the league or it's championship game are notable, not that the specific teams that play in it are.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Personally I would change WP:FOOTYN to only accept FA Cup participation as being notable (so Amateur Cup, Trophy and Vase wouldn't be), but that's just me. As this club has played in the FA Cup, I'd keep the article. Kivo (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo: First, FOOTYN does not 'accept' anything as notable, it isn't a Subject Specific Notability Guideline (SNG). Second, even SNGs such as WP:NSPORT do not 'accept' topics as notable, they create a presumption of notability, which may be overruled if challenged and no evidence can be found of the topic meeting the requirements of the WP:GNG. Furthermore the only SNG that mentions teams is WP:NTEAM which states that teams must meet the GNG. I invite you to discuss sources and the topic's meeting or not meeting the GNG instead (as very few keep !voters have in this discussion). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't WP:NTEAM cover sports teams (instead you are directed straight to GNG), but it does cover athletes who have competed in the Olympic Games? There will be some individual Olympians who have swum 50m and been eliminated, and they will be 'presumed notable' - but not football clubs (with decades of history) that have played in the FA Cup? Just an observation. Anyway, the Cray Valley PM article seems well sourced (from numerous separate sources too). Also, do sources have to be online to meet GNG? With over a century of history, the club will have had lots of media coverage that is simply unavailable to us. Kivo (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo:Nearly all of the sources in the article either fail to represent significant coverage, or are not independent, or cannot be confirmed to be a reliable source. That's the issue here (see discussion above). Sources are not required to be online, but we can't assume that they exist just because the topic is old. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would represent 'significant' coverage? We'd have to discount anything that wasn't online (you couldn't cite a TV documentary for example, as my village team was lucky enough to feature in last year), in which case significant would suggest national coverage? Regional? There's plenty of regional sources cited already. Nationwide would be very difficult for a lot of clubs below Step 1. Kivo (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason we would have to discount anything not online. Offline sources are definitely acceptable as RS. Is there a TV documentary about the team? If it was produced and aired by ITV or BBC I would say it's likely RS and it would change my thinking (and likely my !vote). But I don't think we're aware of any such sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kivo: Look at WP:SIGCOV, which gives the rule - there are a number of sources linked above as well (I think they do significantly cover the topic.) Also, to answer your previous question, the reason for the difference is organizations are different from people: we are very careful with biographical articles, especially ones of people who are alive. SportingFlyer talk 22:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Number57, GiantSnowman and prior AFD consensus. Drawoh46 (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The notion by those seeking to delete the article seems to come from the idea that a small team in the lower reaches of the English football pyramid isn't notable because either a) teams at a similar level in other nation's leagues are not present on the wiki or b) there are a lack of independent sources. To counter both arguements, firstly, the English pyramid system is noted for its depth and organisation compared to other countries. The league system is much more structured and professionalised at the tenth level than pretty much every other nation in which football is played professionally. The clubs at the 10th tier of English football are mainly semi-professional. Additionally, if the argument is made that this team should be deleted, then at what level do we cut teams out? Are National League teams not notable because they don't play in the Football League? Are 7th tier teams not notable because they don't play in nationwide leagues? To me, those would seem arbitrary as cut offs. Additionally, the 10th tier is known as being a cut off point between the amateur lower levels and the semi-professional game, with some rules being present in level 10 (such as requiring clubs to sell tickets to games) that are not present at level 11, along with teams below level 10 not usually being allowed to compete in the FA Cup. Secondly, sources are to provide back up for facts, not to contest that something exists. If a page is noteworthy but does not have a lot of sources, that is not inherently a reason to delete the page. Yes, good sources should always be desired, however they are not essential for an article. And besides, Cray Valley's performance and entry into leagues should be well documented by the FA and the relevant league's website, which are credible sources. To me, this debate seems to be made by a bunch of people who don't really understand the structure of English football and are trying to establish a precedent to delete a bunch of articles just because they don't feel like they should exist. These teams are noteworthy, and should be kept. BarnabyJoe (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm going against the grain here, but I cannot support anything but deletion, mostly because I am extremely reluctant to make decisions on inclusion based on unwritten consensus. If there truly is consensus for a certain threshold, then it should be codified; if it isn't codified, we shouldn't apply it. Arguing along the lines of "I know it's not in the rules, but this is how it's done here" sounds dangerously like an old-boys club. The only applicable codified threshold I can see is WP:GNG, and I cannot see this club meeting that threshold. Vanamonde (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in many of these AfDs the result was delete – because they had not played at level 10 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase. The purpose was to illustrate the existence of consensus that this is the cut-off point for club notability (and it's probably used more often to delete clubs that don't meet this requirement). And as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes."; all clubs at this level in the English pyramid have articles, so deleting this one would create inconsistency. Number 57 07:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states that "Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars." However, WP:5P2 writes that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". The guideline WP:WHYN further states: We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Unfortunately, significant coverage in independent sources has not been identified. I haven't seen a strong rationale presented to apply WP:IAR here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter anyways, as the club passes WP:GNG (there's at least agreement it's borderline) - and even assuming it doesn't, there are no NPOV issues in the article, nor is it written like an advertisement. SportingFlyer talk 03:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we are writing about topics for which independent sources don't give the time of day, it is still promotional, even if the content does not "sound" glaringly like an over-the-top advertisement.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. If it's not written like a promotion, it's not promotional. That's literally the definition of promotional. Smartyllama (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would say English football club articles had digged too deep into amateur league, which the consideration should be more on WP:GNG (or non-routine coverage on secondary source) when start to counting over 5 level below top level. It may be a good project for football dedicated encyclopedia, but in wikipedia it seem not that necessary. Keep only if non-routine source or even book (non-primary source one) about the club were digged out and insert to the article. Matthew_hk tc 03:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:GNG requires that a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This club gets significant coverage in a number of independent sources, which includes in-depth match previews (1, 2) and match reports (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) in local media, rival club sites and various other football sites. There is a historical account of the club on the offical league website and accounts of their ground appear in a number of online stadium guides. The only question is how reliable these sources are. If it was one online source, this might be an issue, but there are many independent sources, including reputable local media and offical organisations. It passes the criteria in WP:GNG.   Jts1882 | talk  07:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not independent Aside from kentishfootball.co.uk, which was already discussed earlier, the other sites you listed do no seem independent. Pitchero.com is a promotional platform to support clubs, and does not seem independent: "United on one unique platform Pitchero provides each club, league or county organisations with the tools they need to create a website, manage their membership and collect payments online"[29] Cray-wanderers.com, ashfordunitedfc.com, and balhamfc.com are sites of football clubs writing about opponent Cray Valley Paper Mills. As they would be expected to write about any opponent of theirs', it is not independent nor presumed to be discriminate. Brixtonbuzz.com is a website with local entertainment listings. The link you listed is really just a collection of photos, a blurb from team website, and ticket purchase info. Doesn't seem significant enough to help expand on Wikipedia content. Londonfa.com also seems affiliated, being a "governing body of football in London. We aim to grow participation, promote diversity, safeguard the game for everyone to enjoy, and to retain and develop the workforce."[30] Finally, talesfromthepigeonstands.wordpress.com, with no dedicated domain name, looks like an amateur blog. The site says that they "we will be visiting as many grounds as possible in order to provide the casual football fan with the information they need before making an educated decision as to how they plan to spend their Saturday afternoon as well as telling soe jolly tales from our expeditions."[31]—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As already stated, this club fits the notability criteria laid down many years ago under WP:FOOTYN due to the level at which it plays. Rillington (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was this relisted? Consensus was clearly to keep, we should have just closed this so we can stop wasting everyone's time. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from last relist admin Despite the walls of text badgering every "delete" !vote here, in my opinion consensus is not as clear a you make it seem. --Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think his point is that few of the Keep !votes are grounded in policy or guideline-based reasons for keeping the article. The vast majority cite either the Wikiproject pseudo-SNG essay (not a guideline), or are "per Number 57", which is essentially an "other stuff" argument or an argument from 'outcomes'. Some of the Keep !votes have even stated that the GNG is irrelevent, despite WP:NTEAM being the relevant guideline advice. A few of the Keep !votes disagree about the article not meeting the GNG, which is totally fine, and the article won't close as 'delete'. But the article could easily be closed as 'no consensus' by an admin who decided to disregard !votes that have no footing in our notability guidelines. From what I can see: There appear to be precisely five editors in the above discussion arguing that the sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG (SportingFlyer, Smartyllama, Fenix down, Kivo, Jts1882) though only a couple of those editors discuss which sources they believe meet the GNG's requirements. Six editors have argued that the sourcing is insufficient for GNG (Dougal18(the nom), Myself, Barkeep49, Bagumba, Vanamonde93, Bring back Daz Sampson). Additionally, Multiple editors have 'Commented' in various ways that the keep !voters are off base (RobinCarmody, power~enwiki, Masem, Matthew_hk). Remember that AfD is not a head counting exercise, or majority vote, arguments for keeping or deleting an article must be rooted in policy, and then are weighted accordingly. Assessed this way, the above discussion more closely represents a 'no consensus' situation than 'keep'; I am pretty sure that this is why Randykitty relisted it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no SNG for football clubs. The only SNG that mentions them applies is WP:NTEAM, which specifically points to the GNG. I don't know how many times I have to say this before people stop treating FOOTYN as an SNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kentishfootball.co.uk not reliable Barkeep49 called into doubt the reliabilty of this site above at 21:37, 14 August. This has been about the only site which has significant coverage, and both Insertcleverphrasehere and myself stated we were giving it's reliability the benefit of the doubt. However, this forum post, signed by the same person listed as the main contact at http://kentishfootball.co.uk, called it "as an expensive hobby, but now I have opened up a bank account to expand my “expensive hobby” into a business ... I attend at least two football matches in Kent every week, writing match reports, interviewing managers and bringing all the latest football news from the Garden of England." Without further evidence that independent sources consider him a subject matter expert, I would just consider this to be a personal blog, which are generally not reliable per guideline WP:UGC.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - there's no reason to think this isn't a reliable source, as it's a writer able to write about the topic professionally who has been linked to by a number of local clubs. Furthermore you're discounting other sources with significant coverage like [32]. SportingFlyer talk 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's a business, written by a professional author. It's a reliable source. Furthermore, as SportingFlyer explained, you're ignoring coverage in numerous other reliable sources. We're not discussing the notability of the author, only of the team. Sports columnists rarely get coverage in independent, reliable sources. That makes them non-notable, but it doesn't make the subject of their coverage non-notable. That's a ridiculous assertion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Professionalism is not how we define a reliable source (see the many sources written by full time paid professionals deemed unreliable here). I do not feel comfortable with the information I know to say where on the reliability spectrum Kentishfootball is, but in general a single person operation is going to be less likely to be reliable given the lack of editorial controls. To be reliable this single person would have to be an expert acknowledged by reliable sources as such. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's also the Daily Mirror from 14 December 1967, Norwood News from 26 February 1954 and possible coverage from the Kentish Mercury. The british newspapers archive OCR isn't very good, so there's a number of possible hits - Norwood at least covered their results in the 1950's. SportingFlyer talk 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you SportingFlyer. Is the Norwood News from that era RS? I am unfamiliar with it and the Wikipedia article is about a different organization (unless a Bronx newspaper covered minor English football teams). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They appear to be a reliable paper dating back to at least 1868, but may have gone out of business sometime in the 1960s. See [33] for a random day's paper I found on Google. Is the Daily Mirror the one that's unreliable and garbage, or is that the Daily Mail? I always mix them up. Smartyllama (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also coverage of the club's games in the News Shopper.[34][35] Number 57 14:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking multiple sources GNG states that "multiple sources are generally expected", where a source is from a different publisher. The guideline WP:WHYN says: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." In my opinion, a few local newspaper sources active in any given area is not enough sources to meet GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the Daily Mirror was a national source. I could be wrong, though, I don't know British papers that well. Smartyllama (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smartyllama: It is, you are quite correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People are using the WP:GNG argument for deleting this article. However the article sites numbers different sources, including two national football publications, as well as several other sources which are independent and not related to the club. When combined, these sources fit all of the General notability guidelines as set out on the GNG page. Rillington (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see a number of !votes pointing to the existence of match recaps and the like as coverage. We generally discount routine sourcing like that (otherwise, we'd argue that every individual assn. football match, gridiron football game, baseball game, etc. could be GNG-notable). End of season summaries may be better as long as they are transformative (secondary), not just repeating how the club did but analyzing that further. --Masem (t) 17:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that match reports are routine coverage as far as notability of the players or matches; however, the fact that a club regularly has its games covered would indicate a level of notability. Generally there are two levels of coverage of football in newspapers – match reports for individual clubs and roundups for leagues. The former would indicate a level of notability for the club and the latter for the league. Number 57 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Number 57: What you're talking about is match coverage - either detailed coverage of a specific game or league round-ups, but whichever type of coverage is going to fall into that routine category. I think Masem is rightly noting the lack of more big picture coverage that would suggest a notable team - an indication that it's not just a match here and there of some interest but the team as a subject of coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've read that essay before (thanks SportingFlyer for bringing it to my attention) but I've certainly referenced its ideas before although not in sports. However we're not looking at week-in week-out coverage of their matches (unless I'm mistaken about the evidence). It's more like once or twice a season (or so), correct for a team that plays 30-40 matches a season? If so that doesn't fit my idea of continuous but could understand others who disagree. And I can find numerous American High School football teams who not only outdraw Cray Valley but have far more coverage every week (plus season previews/reviews). It feels like if this 100+ year old team were notable this whole discussion wouldn't be so hard but we're looking at an organization far down the pyramid and while they certainly exist Wiki's chosen a higher bar for inclusion that I'm just having trouble seeing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The U.S. high school argument is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comparison, as those teams can get five-figure crowds, and is a completely different notability standard than what we're looking at here. As I've stated, I think they meet the goal for inclusion. WP:GNG isn't a high a bar. As shown, they receive consistent local coverage for the competitions they play in, especially for the competitions they've gone on to win. The conversation's difficult because the club are right on the edge of where the teams in the pyramid are notable, and because they do receive coverage. (They've also just qualified for the FA Cup first qualifying round, one of the last 276 clubs in the competition - it's completely conceivable the top 300+ football teams in the country that invented football are notable.) SportingFlyer talk 04:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer:You're right the HS argument was OTHERSTUFF and so I've now struck it. You're also right that it wouldn't be surprising if there were 300 notable English football club. I wouldn't be surprised if we actually already have that many articles. But that doesn't mean Cray Valley (bless their Paper Mill producing hearsts) are notabile. I will repeat that this is a club that has had a substantial chance of the time since England invented the sport to gain coverage (and thus notability). It feels like going back as far as we can what we find is the once or twice a season match coverage that doesn't suggest they're actually notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree this time. I think that the discussion as pretty much come to a logical close. Ignoring !votes contrary to policy, there is clearly no consensus as to whether the team passes GNG or not, it depends on how strict each editor wants to be about it, and how they assess the reliability of the very few sources that we do have, and also whether this sporadic match coverage even contributes to notability of the team (I and others don't think it does, but others disagree). I doubt that another week of discussion is going to change anyone's mind. If someone were to manage to get into a library and verify whether any of the applicable books/sources listed HERE contain significant coverage of the team, that could go a long way to settling the notability or lack thereof for this team. Until that happens, consensus will likely be split over whether the team meets the GNG. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had typed out a similar message and deleted it out of respect for traditionalprocess but I would agree that the community has weighed in at length on this topic. Kirbanzo are you willing to reconsider your relist and/or be an experienced editor in judging consensus and make a close (as I presume it will not be delete). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kirbanzo !voting instead would be of more value. Per the guideline WP:NACD re: an actual close, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above comments. SportingFlyer talk 01:26, 28 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) Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Otten

[edit]
Ryan Otten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet either WP:NCOLLATH as a college football player or WP:NGRIDIRON as a pro football player. He did not win any national college football awards or get any non-WP:ROUTINE national media coverage. While in the NFL, he never appeared in a regular season or playoff game. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination: I have found local news articles about Otten, such as this profile from 2010 and this from 2011 by the San Jose Mercury News, that could help this article meet WP:GNG. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:54, 28 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) Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Grigsby

[edit]
Noel Grigsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON. There is little more than WP:ROUTINE local news coverage from his college football career, and he does not meet any of the four core NCOLLATH criteria such as winning a national award. Also, he was only a practice squad member of an NFL team, so he doesn't meet NGRIDIRON. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I found out that Grigsby was a 2010 Phil Steele second-team Freshman All-American [36], thus possibly meeting the NCOLLATH criterion about winning a national award. If that's the case, then I would like to withdraw this nomination. Arbor to SJ (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 28 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. It looks like all keep arguments have been effectively rebutted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Henry Baber

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bob Henry Baber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed candidate for U.S. Senate and former mayor of a non-notable city. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:N and other notability guidelines for his category. Google search turns up with his impeachment from last month, but that's only one event, so it may fail WP:BLP1E. Redditaddict69 13:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 13:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's more than just the 2018 impeachment cited in the article. Baber is also one of the most prominent members and candidates of the Mountain Party, a major political party in West Virginia, including being its first elected official. Bitmapped (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – But that doesn't demonstrate notability. An example of a similar article would be Rebekah Kennedy, the top-percentage-of-vote getter of any Green Party U.S. Senate candidacy, closed as a redirect after an AfD Discussion. This can be redirected to the WV Mountain party or merged, too. Redditaddict69 15:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "particularly good profile" is a WP:MILL news report, the sources mentioned by User:Hameltion are event listings, and Routine campaign and political coverage. User:Hameltion, I started editing not all that long ago. At first, it seemed to me that lots of politicians, mayors, county commissioners, heads of state and municipal departments were obviously notable because there would be many articles in the local and regional press about their policies, campaigns, and accomplishments while in office. These people and the work they do are not only admirable, they are notable in REAL LIFE. However, at WP we have wored out standards, such as WP:POLITICIAN to screen out and keep articles only on POLS who attain certain stipulated offices and others of truly extraordinary accomplishment attested by WP:SIGCOV in regional and national publications, bookds, acadmeic journals and, well, other things that attest to notability. Looking at the rules is a good start, but it takes a while to figure out how they apply in practice. I hope you'll look at some other Politician AfDs, and see that we really are trying out best, and not without reasons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your characterization that the 2006 report that has a substantial amount about Baber as "run of the mill". I also ask that you take a look at the information in this long piece about his party, other articles during his mayoralty, and of course the ridiculously in-depth reporting about his investigation and removal from office. Coverage from local sources is not by definition trivial. I would, with some reservations, compare the media coverage of this subject to Ed Jew and the latter halves of the Greg Skrepenak and Richie Farmer articles. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 02:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 27 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) 11:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amadu Sulley

[edit]
Amadu Sulley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The position is not intrinsically notable, and there is minor routine news coverage only except for the ONEEVENT indictment. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of any notability. Agree with nominator. If we had an article for every allegedly corrupt politician, we would be overwhelmed. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-references do not all point to a single event of corruption. They are spread out in the various times he occupied the position which gives him Wikipedia notability status.And again he is not a politician. Disagree with nominator Ataavi —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- Per WP:SIGCOV ,Article content does not determine notability and therefore the nominator's argument that it leads to a one time indictment event and will make the namesake of the article not meet Wikipedia notability is wrong.Notability requires verifiable evidence and all references sited for the article Amadu Sulley,mostly put out Amadu Sulley as the subject of the article and not some pass-by mention hence proving his notability to attract news and press coverage. Per WP:GNG Admitted the article may have been created during the time his alleged misdoings where public talk,this does not go against any standards.The article is a stub and will be expanded with reliable material and hence from wiki policy must be protected. I support a keep for this African article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ataavi (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:POLOUTCOMES says: "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." If the head of the election commission is considered the equivalent of a cabinet position, then perhaps the deputy chairperson passes a sub-cabinet official. I realize that the chair of the election commission is not actually in the cabinet, in part because they are probably supposed to be neutral, but countries often have officials who report to the national parliament such as an Auditor General or the chief elections official who have positions that are arguably equivalent to a cabinet minister. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Read WP:NPOL.It (Article and its subject matter) passes. Or K.e.coffman could help me see his point of view by pointing out and explaining a bit more.Ataavi.(talk)22:29,22nd August,2018.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I believe silence from the other side asking for deletion , means the grounds of the argument for keep for this Ghanaian-related article stub is strong,and thereby the argument for keep should be upheld.Ataavi.(talk)13:32,2ndSeptember,2018.
Comment - that would be an erroneous conclusion. There is nothing here that has cast the slightest doubt on my assessment.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Its a fair and good conclusion, an article on an important public official in a country with a notable career.Passes WP:GNG.Remember article content is not sufficient to make judgement on notability.The article is a stub. References helps in this case. Moreover,the article is well linked to other Wikipedia pages. My past contributions show that I do offer services to wikipedia pages of Ghanaian concern.I vouch for the subject matter's notability.

Ataavi (talk) 08:12 , 3rd ,September,2018.

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of radiata animal orders

[edit]
List of radiata animal orders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

'Radiata' is not a clade, is obsolete, and historically was defined in (very) different ways at different times, so 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. In short, it's totally misleading. An editor removed the prod so here we are. I have added a table of alternative definitions to Radiata, which I think says pretty much all that is needed on the topic. The varying definitions at phylum level shown in the table in Radiata show exactly why the idea of creating a list at (modern) order level is a non-starter - the definitions are incompatible with each other (so no list is possible), and in addition translating Cuvier's 1817 classification into any list of 2018 orders which did not exist in his day makes no sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a clear explanation and well-reasoned deletion nomination. I get tired of seeing the usual boilerplate, alphabet soup of unelaborated acronyms dropped at AFD without any regard to the specific content. It's nice to see an argument clearly based on an understanding of the subject matter.

    Could a redirect to Radiata still be useful? postdlf (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's good to hear. I don't think this is a plausible search term, and for the reasons I gave, Radiata does not provide any lists of animal orders either, so I favour deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless it can be shown that historical sources provided extensive lists of this sort that go beyond the outline definitions already added to radiata. That would make it encyclopaedic in my opinion, but the current list mapping modern groupings onto historical definitions is WP:OR. I'm not persuaded by the argument that contradictory definitions rule out this page. That could be handled by separate sections, but as I say, there needs to be proper sourcing first. SpinningSpark 23:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: what a well-reasoned argument, on both sides of the case. A model of clarity and logic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the rationale eloquently put forward by the OP and of Spinningspark. Artificially forcing modern taxa into this list is definitely WP:OR, especially as there were clear shifting sands of the meaning of the group, and no references have been put forward to support it. The summary at Radiata seems to suffice, and I agree there's little value in turning this into a redirect. I would not expect to find a "List of Vermes animal orders", but would expect to find a reasonable explanation of what both now-abandoned groupings meant to naturalists at the time, and over the centuries that followed. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree with Chiswick Chap's claim that " 'formerly classified as Radiata' gives an undefinable list which cannot correctly be combined with modern classes, subclasses, and orders. " Any group that has ever been included in "Radiata" [by a reputable source] would be in the category "formerly classified as Radiata". According to the article "Radiata", this would include ctenophora, cnidaria, myxozoa, placozoa, echinoderms and "parasitic worms". [I am aware that echinoderms and parasitic worms are bilaterians.] Also, his argument that radiata is "not a clade" is unimportant. After all, we have "List of reptiles". (Actually, "List of reptiles" is weakly sourced, with only a single reference.) Rather, the problem with this list article is the absence of a single reliable source with a clear list encompassing the last two centuries of classification systems. This makes the list article non-notable, while the main article ("Radiata") is notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal fantasy

[edit]
Animal fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:SYNTH; no sign this is commonly considered a genre of fiction. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:54, 27 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GMGtalk 19:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Unified School District

[edit]
Fresno Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly unnotable. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep? - It's a school district with more students than most small towns have people. There seems to be plenty of sources available to write a half decent article with, even though much/most of them are local. GMGtalk 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this but I was unaware of WP:GEOLAND is there a way I can close this deletion nomination? TheAwesomeHwyh

Yes, you can opt to withdraw the nomination at any time because there has been no one so far in favor of deletion. GMGtalk 18:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok how do I opt out then? TheAwesomeHwyh

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:TOOSOON and/or WP:BLP1E -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolatito Aderemi-Ibitola

[edit]
Bolatito Aderemi-Ibitola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable. No evidence of work in museums or major galleries; no critical coverage; the prize is for "emerging" artists--that is, beginners, which is pretty close to the definition of not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are even more excellent sources in Gnews, in even better international publications! However they are all about the same prize and all published within the last month. Isn't that called WP:BLP1E?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one hundred percent of the sources I saw in an online search refer to the fact that this recent college graduate recently won a prize. This is a case of way way too soon, a case of a single event being the only RS available, and a case of an artist who does not meet WP:ARTIST. If she wins a Nobel prize, OK. Beyond the prize, she has no other accomplishments beyond being born and having received a university degree. I agree that emerging typically refers to fully trained artists at the beginning of their professional careers, rather than absolute beginners. Maya Lin was at the same stage of her career (actually she was in fourth year of university) when she was awarded the commission for the Vietnam War Memorial. She was trained, and emerging. ThatMontrealIP. (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 19:40, 4 September 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bradford

[edit]
Chris Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG even if on the surface it looks like he could meet criteria #3 I could find only mentions in goodreads and blogs. The claim to being a bestselling author refers to amazon lists which don't count. None of the sources are in-depth coverage in RS at best there are interviews in blogs. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article is overstuffed with PRIMARY sourcing. I ran a Proquest news archibve search on him, and what turns up is a modest number of articles, mostly in small British newspapers, about his running workshops for kids with a "Samuarai" theme, he has a children's book series Young Samurai (that page lacks sources.) I did find this brief review in the Evening Standard: "Normally, I'd give anything involving the martial arts a very wide berth but Chris Bradford's The Way of the Sword (Puffin, Pounds 6.99) is addictive. It's about an English boy, Jack, shipwrecked in Japan in the 17th century, adopted by a local warrior struggling to protect his father's navigational charts from a sinister ninja called Dragoneye. It occupies the same territory as Harry Potter, not least in that it's a boarding school story. Jack is training to be a samurai, and at the One School of Two Heavens he has loyal friends, including a clever girl warrior, and sneery, unpleasant enemies, one of whom is also engaged in an ancient competition called the Circle of Three. I could give you a list of parallels with HP but, believe me, there are heaps.(A CHILD'S WORLD, FULL OF GIANT MOTHS AND SAMURAIS: CHILDREN'S BOOKS McDonagh, Melanie. Evening Standard; London (UK) 09 July 2009: 34. [61] Kept searching and found a few more brief reviews, and stories in papers in India, Australia, and NZ, as well as some coverage of his books in the London papers, including rights sold to TV. I think there's enough to keep, albeit it will be a lot of work to turn bits of coverage into a properly sourced article. No profiles found. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that searches work using "Chris bradford" + Samurai, or "Chris Bradford" + Bodyguard. The latter in a gNews search brings up these [62], book reviews, a feature article in Publisher Weely, A Quartet of Titles Launches Chris Bradford’s Bodyguard Series . Page in desperate need of need upgrade, but this is a WP:SNOW KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no doubt that the books are notable. Given the lack of sourcing about Bradford as a subject (which I'm basing on Domdeparis's comments as I have not had time to seriously investigate) I'm not sure that it's a SNOW KEEP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We keep authors if their books are notable, even anonymous authors about whom we truly know nothing, and reclusive authors who do not give interviews. But click teh link marked [2] in my comment above, for several recent, reliable sources about Bradford. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 28 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: P. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Priapus (Marvel Comics)

[edit]
Priapus (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia, and the page is not linked by any other articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Your Fire Tour

[edit]
Hold Your Fire Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NTOUR, an article on a tour requires evidence of "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not' sufficient to demonstrate notability." Except for various Rush fan forums, the tour has never received coverage independent of the affiliated album. I can find no reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this tour as an entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 15:27, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Dutta

[edit]
Abhishek Dutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing is really thin and I'm not seeing WP:GNG. Marquardtika (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 15:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject is not notable. The man wrote a thesis, won an award (NIASA), was nominated for one, NDTV Good Times showcased some of his works, and he received a Certificate of Appreciation from IIA. The first reference attests that the subject was "nominated amongst the top 50 next generation Indian architects" (not encyclopedia notable) and the next three (one IIA and two NIASA) are primary sources on non-encyclopedia significant awards. I am sure there are many "thousands" of field specific "national awards" in India so I can see nothing being "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life.".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syamdhar

[edit]
Syamdhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails subject notability guidelines by a mile.No significant coverage about the subject, except in promo-interviews and as name-mentions in the review of his two films.TOOSOON. ∯WBGconverse 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 15:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable. He is mentioned at Times of India, International Business Times India and other media. this International Business Times article says that his movie Pullikkaran Staraa is "is one of the most anticipated projects of the year." -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gprscrippers, you need to see WP:NOTINHERITED. ∯WBGconverse 06:40, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Hibbert

[edit]
Jimmy Hibbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns; a biography of a voice actor that is sourced entirely to the IMDb page. I don't see any significant coverage of his career that meets WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 11:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 15:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per .John Pack Lambert. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:17, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Taylor

[edit]
Jed Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unable to find sufficient independent secondary sourcing to sustain this biography. On the one hand much of the career took place pre-Internet so sources I haven't been able to find may exist; on the other, it does not seem to be material likely to have generated a lot of coverage (local radio host; small connections to more notable figures). Innisfree987 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 15:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Is it the first time that this article is nominated for the deletion? -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy declined my A7 a year ago; I should've just PROD'ed in the first place (my mistake) but after the declined speedy, entries aren't eligible for PROD anymore. So I left it a while just to see and there has been some tinkering, but no improvement as far secondary source coverage is concerned. Hence the AfD nomination. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:34, 27 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Youth League U13

[edit]
2017–18 Youth League U13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. No coverage found and is very incomplete. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 27 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youth league U13

[edit]
Youth league U13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Not notable and no coverage found AmericanAir88(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: It was not confirmed as a sock in SPI, also speedy only applies to article that was created after block evasion. Matthew_hk tc 16:16, 1 September 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. Seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the sources here satisfy GNG criteria, although it's close to a "delete" outcome as most rebuttals by the keep camp are overall quite weak (WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, arguments that don't address whether the sources are actually qualified). Also, opinions on other editors' reading competence are not germane to an AfD, please keep them to yourself. See also WP:NPA Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nafez Assaily

[edit]
Nafez Assaily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable activist. Sourced to a couple of interviews, his homepage, and what would seem to be a self-authored bio. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has multiple book mentions. 1, 2. And Newsweek magazine (accessed at Google Books) mentioned him at 1990 article (that is 28 years ago). -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions, random quotes, and some directory listings. None of these are in depth.Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO does not require any in-depth coverage. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I don't think the sources, especially the more recently added ones, reach the point of being trivial - they often devote several paragraphs to him and lay out his basic biography. Several such sources (which the article has, now) is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. --Aquillion (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the added sources are not RSes, and many are brief blurbs and quotations - responded below with a complete analysis of each one.Icewhiz (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books that mention him are not supportive of notability, they are:
  • A Land Full of God: Christian Perspectives on the Holy Land]] by Mae Elise Cannon, the mention is brief and not usable because it inaccurately describes Assaily as "sociologist" and sources statements about him with two citations, one is to the "Library on Wheels," the organization Assaily is described as running, and the other is to: "Assaily, "Naffez Assaily's page". This is not a reliable source.
  • Humanitarian Law in Action Within Africa, a scholarly book by a non-bluelinked author, Jennifer Moore, merely cites an article Assaily co-wrote.
  • Connecting with the Enemy: A Century of Palestinian-Israeli Joint Nonviolence by Sheila H. Katz, mentions Assaily as founder of the ‘Library on Wheels for Nonviolence and Peace,' and quotes him, before being cut off by one of google's this-page-is not messages.
  • India's Israel Policy by P. R. Kumaraswamy merely contains the statement, in the "acknowledgements" forward, "I interacted with a number of Palestinian figures including... Naffez Assaily..."
  • These are mere mentions that fail to demonstrate notability, (if someone can access the rest of the mention in "Connecting with the Enemy," and considers it to me SIGCOV, I request that they copy out the full relevant text on in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much of what in in the article is primary, and searches turn up passing mentions that, like material in article, is sourced to statements made by Assaily and not interdependently verified. Moreover, while there are hits in books and media, they are brief mentions, or, as in one case now on the page, a quote. He established a bookmobile called the "Library on Wheels for Nonviolence and Peace," but there is no indication that it was notable, or that it still exists. Fails WP:BASIC. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC) withdraw for lack of time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh come now, gentlemen. You, Gregory, have devoted extensive amounts of time to making wiki articles on even the most recondite incidents of Palestinian violence, scraping through memes repeated in provincial newspapers, and now repudiate the idea that an article on that rare thing, a Palestinian pacifist, should be tolerated on Wikipedia? Is this where NPOV lies?Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This needs a lot of cleanup, but sources that satisfy WP:BIO were pretty easy to find. (Note that the article has been substantially expanded in terms of sourcing since this AFD began.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: - the article does seem to look better following the addition of many citations since the AfD begun. However, lets look at the critically (numbered by the order under "Sources"):
    1. ref1 (Assaily 2004), ref2 (Assaily 2006), ref3 (Assaily, 2009), ref4 (Assaily, 1991) - all authored/co-authored by the subject (some are in non-RS). Do not establish notability in any shape or form.
    2. ref5 (Burrowes, 1991) - two sentence mention, citing Assaily's call for non-violence.
    3. ref6 (Cannon) - not sure if this would be a RS, however this is a one-sentence mention of him in the context of his organization facilitating a meeting.
    4. ref7 - incident report from Christian Peacemaker Teams. Most probably not a RS, in any event this is mainly about the family's grape arbor.
    5. ref8 (De Vries, Minke) - RSness doubtful. I don't have page 173 open on preview, however searching the Assaily via the google-search in the book brings up little, and it seems this is a short blurb as well.
    6. ref9 (peacereporter.net) - This does not seem to be a RS. In any event this is an interview - and a fairly short one. Interviews generally do not establish notability.
    7. ref10 (sfgate) - One of a few people interviewed for this piece. Interviews generally do not establish notability.
    8. ref11 (Nicoletta) - I have my doubts on the RSness here. Regardless - this is again an interview of Assaily and does not establish notability.
    9. ref12 (Hertog) - not about Assaily. He is mentioned as the director, and is quoted very briefly. RSness also questionable. Does not establish notability.
    10. ref13 (Mattar) - cites a paper author by Assaily once with a brief quotation. Does not establish notability in any manner.
    11. ref14 (1995 JPost piece) - not available online (and JPost's archive is online) - seems to be a mention of Assaily being interviewed in a film (which is already covered in ref10 (sfgate)) - not an indication of notability.
    12. ref15 (Katz) - part of a single paragraph (which itself is mainly on the Library), followed by a short quote.
    13. ref16 (Levin) - Very briefly thanked in the acknowledgements. Seems also to be self-published / non-RS - this is by Hope Publishing House. Does not establish notability in any form.
    14. ref17 (Moore) - mentioned in a list (as "Palestinian Sufi Nafez Assaily" with a citation of Assaily himself to back up his mention). 4 words do not establish notability in any form.
    15. ref18 (paxchristi) - probably not RS. In any case this a profile of the organization, and mentions Assaily precisely once as the contact (if you will - this also lists a phone number and fax number). Does not establish notability of the subject.
    16. ref19 (Schilling) - mention of job title, followed by a brief quote of Assaily. Does not establish notability.
    17. ref20 (Tessler) - His 1988 position paper is cited. No coverage of Assaily himself.
    18. ref21 (Walz) - I'm not sure of the RSness of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, however this piece is not about Assaily, it is about Awad. Assaily is mentioned in a single paragraph as replacing Awad - does not establish notability in any form.
  • In short - it seems that every brief mention of this individual available online was added to the article. However, RS concerns aside, most of these are very brief blurbs, mentions, and very brief quotes - they do not establish notability. A couple of position papers he wrote in 1988 and 1991 get cited (scantily), he gave the odd interview, and facilitated meetings for visitors. This is a local librarian, running a small on-wheels library, and taking over the position of the more notable Mubarak Awad, who mainly in the 1990s was cited/interviewed a few times.Icewhiz (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep, ...search books.google.com, and you find Nafez Assaily mentioned in loads of books, as acting director of Mubarak Awad's Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence, based in East Jerusalem, or receiver of IBBY-Asahi Reading Promotion Award. Oh, I get it; "Most Palestinians are terrorists"....right....Huldra (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Citation overkill, article has been reference bombed with a large number of articles, including many that are passing mentions, it would be more useful to have added a small number of WP:RS containing WP:SIGCOV. It is hare to believe that an editor actually read all of these sources, or examined their reliability, in the time expended adding them. It would be of use to editors here for someone to bring a few persuasive examples of SIGCOV to this page.22:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
To cite just one of the numerousarticles on Palestinian terrorism you write up, Death of Binyamin Meisner, 37 cites, almost all dealing with 2 moments, reportage of his death 1989, and reports of the prisoner release exchange decades later, involving his killer. He's not notable, but the ref stacking makes it look that way. I.e. double standards. Assaily has been regularly reported for 30 years in books and articles on peace activists.
First the objection was there are not enough sources. One supplies 21, several reliably published books, and the response is: too many sources. Let's look at the category of Israeli settlers, for comparable data.

From Category Israeli rabbis. (Assaily is a religious figure as well)

I.e. Why are you both deeply troubled about an article, well sourced, on a Palestinian peace activist of international repute? Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those meet SNGs (e.g. Yogev - a MK) and it would be easy to find several high quality sources for them - as opposed to this schoolteacher/librarian/activist. Adding several very low quality references - some self-authored, some non-RS, and some mentioning the subject in passing (in as little as 3 ([63] - "Contact: Nafez Assaily) or 4 ([64] - "Palestinian Sufi Nafez Assaily") words) - does not establish notability. Care to point out 3-4 actual RSes that discuss the subject in an independent (not an interview or self-authored) and WP:INDEPTH fashion?Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You think that 'many'(? how many) are SNGs. But you have no evidence. It's an opinion. What my little exercise aspires to show is that, were a POV warrior to set out thinking 'Jewish people' go for deletion of their wiki bios if they are undersourced, the result would be havoc. Sensible editors don't take out articles on technical grounds. They improve them. Assaily, despite all of these pseudo-objections, is manifestly significant in the relevant I/P peace activism area. My impression is this was targeted because (a) I wrote it and (b) the person is Palestinian. The arbitrary focus on him, rather than thousand of bio articles which are manifestly undersourced and dealing with, to date, people who have no international or even national profile, is very, very odd.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: I provided an example (Yogev - MK), however to spell this out in relation to your WP:OSE list above - Ya'akov Asher, Yoav Ben-Tzur, Shlomo Dayan, Avraham Deutsch, Moshe Ze'ev Feldman, Reuven Feldman, Simcha Friedman, Yitzhak Levy, Moti Yogev, Eli Cohen (politician born 1949), Zvulun Kalfa, Shai Piron, Orit Strook are all patently trivial passses of WP:NPOL having served in the Knesset and thus meet "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" and are presumed notable (and it would be fairly trivial to provide better sources for them). Your first example - Ran Kadoch - trivially passes WP:NFOOTY and would be easy to source with the sport/gossip rags. I fail to see the relevance of calling out "POV warrior", "Jewish People", or the subject here being Palestinian. Prior to nominating this article - I did a BEFORE - and I saw very little (not too many instances in which he provided a random quote - and not all of that). Following the AfD nom, the article underwent Wikipedia:Citation overkill additions (which include passing mentions in a lists). Care to point out high-quality, in-depth, sources covering this individual? All I see is a school-teacher/library on wheels operator who replaced the founder of Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence (itself a very small outfit - and quite possibly non-notable - I doubt it would pass WP:NORG), who is quoted very briefly in RSes vis-a-vis his minor actvist role (and the scant coverage, such as it is, is mainly jointly with the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence).Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that anyone in the world who manages to get elected in a state or national legislative for, say 4 years, and serves without distinction or reportage, or anyone who manages to play a couple of games of major league football, or tennis, ping pong, or beach volleyball, etc, is automatically someone whose wiki bio can't be erased, even if the person left no notable record of his performance other than a note in the archives of sporting papers or the respective archives of the Knesset, the Diet, Hungary's National Assembly or Nauru's Parliament, whereas someone mentioned in 10 RS books, and numerous newspapers over a thirty year period has to have his notability proven. Pull the other leg. The objections are pettifogging, policy cavils that, were they applied across the board, would automatically cause the deletion of tens of thousand of articles, without anything like the documentation we have here, whom no one has thought to contest. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elected - even if serving 1 day. Also applies to Palestinian Legislative Council. The SNG states presumption of notability - and such individuals usually have copious media and (possibly subsequently) book references. I personally think NFOOTY frivolous, however it is policy - and soccer players do get coverage in RSes (various sport rags). Regardless - this is policy. Do you have any policy based argument for the notability of this individual? Saying WP:GHITS (which are low, by the way), or throwing out "10 RS books" (some are not RS, and regardless in all of them - these are passing mentions!) does not cut it in terms of meeting WP:SIGCOV. How about presenting the best 3-4 sources here?Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the flagwaving you want to. One often sees what one wants to see.Death of Binyamin Meisner for example. Would you ‘Care to point out high-quality, in-depth, sources covering this individual?’ or any others above. They don't in 98% of the cases exist. And all of these cavils are disregarded, partially, I believe, because they are not Palestinians. With Palestinians, one applies the nanoparticle sensitive microscope.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article subjects being or not being Palestinian is irrelevant from a policy perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, none of the above repetitive policy exclamations will have the slightest impact on the result of this deletion process. They are obviously barrel-scraping.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He runs a mobile library out of a truck. All the sources are passing mentions, short quotes, not reliable, or stuff he wrote himself, does not pass GNG.יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nishidani. Plus he does a lot more than just "runs a mobile library out of a truck". Enough verbiage already. --NSH001 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is a WP:SNOW situation if I've ever heard of one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence. After taking the time to read the sources, and running searches, what I find is a man who makes himself available to meet with sympathetic foreign visitors foreign journalists and writers. They mention meeting him and sometimes quote him. The way they quote him varies oddly, he is not, for example, a "sociologist." What I am not finding is that the few things he has published have been cited in a way that makes him a notable scholar or writer. He is described as a "pacifist", although he likes to tell visitors about his "incessant" activity removing concrete security barriers and teaching children to remove them. He is usually described as running a bookmobile stocked with pacifist books. It is far from being a notable institution. He was a follower of a more notable pacifist, Mubarak Awad who founded the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence, where the far less notable Assaily followed him as director. I suggest we selectively merge Assaily there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are using a double standard. To take but one example, in one of your endless articles on Muslim/Palestinian violence, namely 2016 Jerusalem shooting attack it came up for an AfD and I argued there that the substance of that article was already fully available at the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016 here. Since your article already was covered in a comprehensive list, why the independent page? You didn't want a merge. After all this is an incident where a Palestinian resorted to violence, and deserved a separate page. Here, you want to merge this wiki bio, making out the author is not an independent subject, someone who nonetheless for three decades of individual activism has been cited by at least 12 book RS. You wish to drown him in the Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence article, which was created by someone else, and which Assaily oversaw for some years, while then branching out on a different career. What you appear to be implying is: let's merge Palestinian articles on peace-makers/peacemaking, and multiply articles on Jewish victims of Arab violence. This is obvious POV pushing. In any case, this article has an aesthetically unified, comprehensive overview of the subject, and to mash it into another article which no one has seriously worked yet, would create aa eyesore, besides jarring two discrete entities, a peace activist, and an institution which he was once a director of, only part of his larger story. The obvious merge is of Mubarak Awad with the centre he created, and not that centre with Nafez Assaily. Finally, this article is 26,399 bytes long -near the optimal high end for a biography of this kind. To conflate it with any other article would only induce confusion and tedium (WP:TLDR) in the reader.Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The policy concern is the lack of notable accomplishment, beyond getting quoted "as a Palestinian" by visiting writers. Lack of WP:SIGCOV of anything he has actually done, beyond giving interviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article, please- You think providing tens of thousands of poor children and youths in a war zone with inadequate access to media a free access to ideas of peace, or being regularly invited throughout Europe and North America to talk of peace and conflict resolution, is not notable, the world thinks otherwise. If you are a Palestinian who murders someone you can get an immediate wiki bio ort incident showcasing. If you are a Palestinian who works to avoid such scenarios, you are threatened with wiki erasure.Nishidani (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and obviously so. Im not sure the delete voters are actually looking at the same article and its sources, but even a cursory look at them shows coverage across a range of sources over a range of time. nableezy - 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AfD has become ridiculous and for the most part ignores the question: is this person sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG? I really appreciate IceWhiz's review of the sources, but WP:GNG isn't that high of a threshold, and while this is a valid nomination and borderline call I'm convinced by a couple of the articles get him over the line, particularly the Weekly Standard, German language article, and Peacereporter.net articles. SportingFlyer talk 13:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't reply point for point on Icewhiz's 'impressive' research. This consisted in examining 18 sources (10 of which are RS books) which cite Assaily and then asserting that each cite does not establish notability. That is so farcical a procedure as the mere assertion that in his view this or that might not be RS, than I didn't bother to reply. But I'll give you one exemplary instance of why his 'analysis' is totally unreliable.

Hertog) - not about Assaily. He is mentioned as the director, and is quoted very briefly. RSness also questionable. Does not establish notability

Katrien Hertog devoted a very long piece on Assaily’s work. I don’t know whether this malicious caricature is deliberate or not, but the downloaded article runs to 44 pages, entirely devoted to her analysis of Assaily’s Library on Wheels for Non-violence and Peace Association – LOWNP, which is mentioned 249 times. What apparently Icewhiz did was not read the piece, but rather google rapidly a keyword through it. Even then he got things wrong. He is mentio ned 60 times: 6 as Assaily and 54 times as Nafez. I.e. Icewhiz is not a reliable analyst. He didn’t read the source, and his judgements on the others are just obiter dicta.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt a personal attack, it is a fact. Icewhiz made a statement about a source that is flat out wrong. Either Icewhiz did not actually read the source or Icewhiz lied about it. Nishidani chose the more flattering of the options. nableezy - 17:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with Icewhiz that particular article is more about the association than the subject, and there's a legitimate question as to whether it's a WP:RS or not. SportingFlyer talk 17:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more about the association, but the claim that he is only quoted briefly would only fly if you only looked at where is quoted as "Assaily", however there are 54 more mentions of him as "Nafez", many of those quotes. He is in fact quoted quite extensively throughout the piece. That is where the so-called analysis shows itself to be a result of not actually reading the source. That or lying about it. Again, Nish offered the more flattering of the two. And regardless, there is nothing in his comment that can be called a personal attack, making that warning is totally without basis. nableezy - 17:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not without basis at all. I've participated in many an AfD and have rarely seen a criticism of a specific user in this manner. I understand this is falls into an area users might be passionate about, but it's not at all helpful to the discussion. SportingFlyer talk 01:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is jack's complete lack of passion about this topic. Somebody made a statement about a source that was flat out wrong. They either did not read the source or lied about it. Saying that is not a personal attack. It is not personal and it is not an attack. And, by the way, this entire conversation, from your initial comment, does not belong on this page. nableezy - 21:25, 1 September 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Adegoke

[edit]
Sarah Adegoke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you follow the wikilink WP:SPORTSPERSON it links you to WP:NSPORTS, which provides guidelines for individual sports. WP:NTENNIS takes you straight to the notability guidelines for tennis players. This defines notability as:
Further information may be found at WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. As I said you've applied an overly broad guideline in an inappropriate manner, missing the detailed guidance for notability. WCMemail 20:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am able to read. I noted that the guideline uses "if" rather than "if and only if" – to spell this out, "these are some of the ways in which notability can be demonstrated, though they're not the only ways". I disagree that the application of the guideline is inappropriate, but I don't deny that that's a valid opinion so let's leave it here. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:24, 28 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Religious sister (Catholic)

[edit]
Religious sister (Catholic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV-pushing. An earlier discussion on Talk:Nun went to a consensus not to do difficult about the small distinction between Nuns and religious sisters. But here the author effectively hijacked a redirect to push his POV. Now that he was caught red handed, he moved it to another title. Still there is no need to separate this from Nun. The Banner talk 14:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nun and eventually merge anything that isn't already there. As it says on that page "The new legal code of the Catholic Church which was adopted in 1983, however, remained silent on this matter. Whereas previously the code distinguished between orders and congregations, the code now refers simply to religious institutes.". If the Catholic legal code groups them as one and the same who are we to go against the Holy See? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. @The Banner: Which "earlier discussion on Talk:Nun" are you referring to? The discussions there had to do rather with renaming the Nun article, here and here. In the latter, note the support for adding a separate article such as the one here which you propose for deletion.
And @Domdeparis:, the Code of 1983 did not presume to decide the question of who will be called nuns and who will be called religious sisters except for always referring to "monastery of nuns", never monastery of sisters. They are all religious institutes, which is a generic term, but that doesn't mean that those inside the institutes are not distinguished as nuns, sisters, monks, brothers, friars,... . Note the pivotal statement in the lead: "When bound by simple vows, a woman is a sister, not a nun." Jzsj (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you added [72] seems to be a little confusing because it says "For example, the Visitation Sisters are technically cloistered nuns but teach school" From what I can gather it has a lot to do with when the institute was created. I may be wrong but those belonging to the institutes etablished after the Fifth Lateran Council take simple vows and those belonging to the older institutes take solomn vows but they are basically the same because they all "take the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; live in community in a convent; and share in a particular apostolate." As it says in the sources sisters are called nuns and nuns are called sister by the general public and there are orders of nuns who are known as Sisters. There seems to be no legal difference now because if we can believe Solemn vow "...under the 1917 Code solemn vows rendered a subsequent marriage invalid, but simple vows only made the marriage illicit, the current Code of Canon Law states that "those bound by a public perpetual vow of chastity in a religious institute invalidly attempt marriage" and "Renunciation of the right to own property is now a matter for the constitutions of the religious institute in question and is associated not with the solemnity of the vows but with their perpetuity. " As both simple and solemn vows can be perpetual the same rules apply. So apart from the name what is the real difference if there is no legal difference and some nuns can work like sisters and very few orders remain cloistered? I would say there is not enough material to warrant a WP:SPINOFF and the actual state of affairs with a section that explains the difference is enough. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments you raise show that things are in transition, as the 1983 Code acknowledged, but not that religious sisters, who are currently doing apostolic work and don't live in a monastery, want to be confused with monastic nuns. They usually don't, as the lead of the article on Religious sister (Catholic) makes very clear. As those who wish to be known as sisters, not monastic nuns, almost always call themselves "sister" on their website and in their Wikipedia articles, we should respect that and not link them to an article on nuns. This was proposed by several persons in the discussions on the Talk:Nun page, and still remains valid. Jzsj (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This can be explained in the Nun page. I would suggest that if you feel that the title is in some way injurious to either sisters or nuns then you should make a move request WP:RM#CM. Here you are making some pretty general assumptions about what many many thousands of women want and you are taking an advocacy stand and trying to right great wrongs. This is an encyclopedia we also work as a community and it is the community that decides. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you making the assumption that in calling themselves' "sister" that they would just as soon be called nun. And you seem to be ignoring the great emphasis on the distinction in a couple sources in the lead. I trust that we will wait for fuller community participation in this discussion, that affects so many women and informs the public on possible confusion of Catholic sisters with monastic nuns, as distinguished by the Code of 1983. Jzsj (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: This particular article does not warrant speedy-deletion. It is far better sourced than comparable content in the Nun article where the Nun#Distinction between a nun and a religious sister is discussed. There is perhaps a bit of original research in the final paragraph where states the 1983 Code mentions "nun" in passing (and/or states that the 1983 Code is silent on the matter), however this issue also exists in the Nun article. Even if the 1983 Code eliminates the formal difference, the prior distinction may still be historically notable. Arguments about whether sisters object to being grouped with nuns must be well sourced (references to "respecting" self-identification on the order's websites constitutes original research). However, the deletion of the article must rest on whether the sources adequately assert that "religious sisters" are notably distinct from nuns. – 23:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Additional Comment: There are comparable articles for Munk, Friar, Religious brothers that may aid in discerning whether Religious sister is notably separate from Nun. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your helpful comments. I'd ask, is the number of links to Religious sister compared to the number of links to Nun in Wikipedia (assuming that this is a part of the stored data) admissible as evidence to justify giving sisters their own article, not a subsection of the nun article? I read at WP:OR that: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Can this not be used as evidence on this deletion page, and if so how might we access that statistic? I do agree with your last sentence, that the clinching arguments should be like those in the lead that point out the ongoing distinction between sister and nun. Jzsj (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend whether you can show that the context in the originating article demonstrates that the outbound link was targeting the specific topic of Catholic religious sisters, and not women religious in general. It would have to be a significant number of links for the argument to carry weight. The raw number of inbound links is not useful without the context of the originating article. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The point would be that there are hundreds of sisters and sister's congregations that prefer to call themselves sisters, and so be linked to sister rather than to nun (which is not what they call themselves). Jzsj (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about what a reader would expect when clicking the link to "religious sister"; would they expect the full article discussing women religious, and the place of active congregations within that context, or just the narrowly focused article here. –Zfish118⋉talk 02:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the lead to this article makes clear, most sisters do not expect to be discussed under the title of "nun", which has always and still does suggest the monastic, not the active life. Like in so many articles, for those who wish to learn more about sisters, I would suggest moving some of the material on Nun/Christianity/Roman Catholic to here with briefer coverage there, as it presently serves as a summary article with redirects under Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicanism; Catholicism also deserves a redirect to a more ample article, where the United States and Canada could be included with their present redirects. These articles can only grow over time, and it's due time to use the Nun article as more of brief directory to a much larger group of articles. One might also reopen there the question of including "sister" in the title, considering what is learned here on the separate history of the term. But I don't see further extending the Catholic coverage at Nun when it already greatly exceeds that of other groups there. Jzsj (talk) 04:40, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiaki Arai

[edit]
Yoshiaki Arai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator with an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 27 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keisuke Ono

[edit]
Keisuke Ono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator with an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 27 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 and redirect to List of chess variants. However, I'll hold off on actually deleting the page for a couple of days to allow for a merge. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flying chess

[edit]
Flying chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chess variant with no notable coverage outside of specialist encylopedias (one online, one book). Does not pass the WP:GNG for inclusion in Wikipedia (a general encylopedia). See outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy (chess variant), suggest same remedy, redirect to List of chess variants. LukeSurl t c 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Wikipedia is not a general encyclopedia, at least according to the five pillars. Meanwhile I see no reason why two reliable sources is not enough for an article. Particularly where both are in-depth and one is an encyclopedia. There are sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. That other discussion is not comparable because that was an instance of an article cited to a single source, which obviously fails WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeSurl: Since that article was deleted several users have expressed views that it should not have been deleted. Certainly I would have voted keep had I been involved in that debate. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was a keep in that discussion, though for me 3check got notability from its play at Chess.com and Lichess, which aren't applicable here. I'm trying to work out where the line falls regarding what makes a chess variant notable. A lot of chess variant articles were created on the assumption that a mention in Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants automatically makes it notable. On examination (and tested in those two AfDs), that precedent isn't really viable for an article-each basis - there are literally thousands of variants which get a paragraph in that book.
The Chess Variant Pages is basically the other wide-ranging source with thousands of entries. Users can make submissions [75] & [76]. These submissions are reviewed, but I can't see much evidence that there's any filtering for notability, indeed it looks like the site encourages people to submit newly created variants before they've had much, if any, play.
I'm hoping as a community we can work out some standards regarding chess variants, and having some test-cases regarding Pritchard's encylopedia and The Chess Variant Pages would be helpful towards this. For me, The Chess Variant Pages is effectively a wiki on a specialist topic, and inclusion there is not a good measure of notability. --LukeSurl t c 16:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like my understanding of what Wikipedia is supports keeping most articles like this. You have explained your points well and I don't disagree with your analysis of the sources and how they are put together. The main thoughts I have is that I feel Wikipedia should in most situations cover specialist topics when there are reliable sources to meet the core content policies. I don't see a clear mandate to curate topics by their relevance except for topics prone to spam and promotionalism. If we are looking at relevance, it is true that chess variants are generally niche topics with a relatively low proportion of players and literature compared to the traditional game. I will just say that although I can see the point you are making I am still voting to keep the article. I don't think I have a clear preference towards the unknown number of articles chiefly cited to Pritchard's works, I suppose my preference would be chiefly to keep. The policy is clear that a second source is required at the minimum so any cited only to Pritchard's should be deleted, likewise any article cited only to The Chess Variant Pages should be deleted. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - unless someone can show some other sources beyond Pritchard, this looks to fail WP:GNG. Chess Variant Pages may serve to verify certain uncontroversial facts here and there, but fails as a reliable source that would add to notability. Anybody can add their own game. It is WP:UGC with apparently minimal editorial oversight, making it about as reliable as imdb. Regardless of whether or not it could be used to verify an uncontroversial fact, something that will publish information about any game is not something to be used for notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reading the AfD was eye-opening. I noticed that the invention of Flying Chess was used as an argument that David Eltis was notable. But the article about him was deleted in spite of, or perhaps partly because of, the three "keep" votes by shadowy accounts who had not contributed to Wikipedia until that day. "Spam and promotionalism", but Flying Chess is still with us after 12 years. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the author of this AfD has a discussion going at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess#Regarding the notability of chess variants.
I'll take a look at that and see how it compares to what I found. It might be better to discuss the WP:RS requirements for all chess variants there, come up with a plan general guidelines, rather than have to go through this process for each one. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked most of this over. I found most of the same WP:RS as described above and have similar feelings. [I did also find some games for sale called "Flying Chess" which I seriously doubt have anything to do with this particular variation. [77][78]]
I agree with LukeSurl that notability--certainly of this variation--hinges on whether The Chess Variant Pages demonstrate notability. Although there is also this article (Volume 3, Issue 21; Autumn 1996) in the periodical Chess Variants, because Pritchard is the author, editor president of the club, and 'Games Consultant', that probably won't help establish notability for the variation. If it was another author and editor or he had less power over the periodical, I think it would.
As for Rhododendrites' comments about The Chess Variant Pages, if indeed anyone can add any variation, that would be a problem if there is no oversight of such additions by chess or chess variant experts. However, Hans L. Bodlaender's article was created in 1996. If he just posted it on a website he controlled, then definitely it is the problem of self-published. But the fact that it is still there 20 years later with new stewards of the site might lend credibility to it. Part of the question also relies on how much an expert Mr. Bodlaender was on chess and chess variations when it was written, and if that is a factor on why it was kept and how they decide what to keep. In addition, on that site there is The concise guide to chess variants complied by David Howe in 2011, which includes Flying Chess. Also are any of these editors masters or grandmasters? Without more knowledge of the editors of the site and their expertise and their editorial control, I'm very much on the fence. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 13:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC), 17:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)][reply]
might lend credibility to it - Not sure about this. We don't grant an imdb page more credibility if the material has been there for 20 years, for example. It's still user-generated content -- it's just old user-generated content. :) Regarding The concise guide to chess variants, it's a compilation that includes Pritchard, so is basically another version of Pritchard. If Flying Chess was in one of the other sources it drew from, we should cite that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no fundamental objection to a merge, but if you do that, make sure you vet any merged text to make sure you're not propagating a copyvio, and then revdel the history to clean that of copyvio as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aeroplane Chess is definitely something different than the more obscure Flying chess. I did a pretty comprehensive search on "flying chess" above. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:08, 6 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Yevseyev

[edit]
Denis Yevseyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. I don't think his silver medal at the Asian Games is enough for notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 27 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Donachie

[edit]
Barry Donachie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY as has never played international football or in a fully professional league (WP:FPL). No indication of sufficient coverage to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 27 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Agronomic and Veterinary Science

[edit]
Faculty of Agronomic and Veterinary Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · of Agronomic and Veterinary Science)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Just a part of Loyola University of Congo with no separate notability. The Banner talk 13:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 27 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) 11:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Cruises

[edit]
Variety Cruises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Essentially all sources are passing mentions, commercial listings, or press releases. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hilton, Spud (2009-01-25). "Mediterranean cruise line's unique itineraries". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      That said, Variety Cruises, a family-owned small-ship line in Greece, is starting to market its weeklong Greek island and Red Sea cruises to North Americans and, while the fares are not as cheap as a Western Caribbean cruise on Carnival, most are a bargain considering the region and size of ship.

      Variety, started in 1949 as an "educational ferry" by the father of the current owner, now runs more than a dozen ships on more than a dozen itineraries through the Aegean and Ionian seas. (Also, starting last month, the 32-passenger Harmony V began sailing up the Red Sea with stops in Aqaba, Jordan; Taba and Sharm el Sheikh, Sinai; and Safaga and Hurghada, Egypt.)

      Most notable about the service (other than the prices) is that the ships arrive later and stay longer in the ports, giving passengers an opportunity to experience the culture at night - often when the real culture is thriving and after the oppressive hordes from the other ships have sailed off. (Passengers get breakfast and one other daily meal, which is Variety's not-so-subtle way of encouraging you to get out, explore and discover local cuisine at a chic restaurant or funky taverna - arguably one of the most fun ways to experience local culture.)

      The company's bread and butter is visiting iconic Greek fishing villages, Roman ruins, volcanic islands, Medieval towns and impossibly scenic and secluded beaches typically available only to small-ship cruises. The main routes are Aegean Odyssey (with stops in Marina Zea, Kea, Folegandros, Samos, Patmos, Santorini and Mykonos, as well as Kusadasi in Turkey), and the Classical Greece trip, with some of the same stops, as well as Nafplio, Spetses, Monemvasia, Rethymno and Heraklion.

    2. Tunney, Donna (2012-07-26). "Variety Cruises courts gay community, yoga enthusiasts". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      New York-based Variety Cruises is expanding its offerings to the gay community and to cruisers interested in yoga.

      Variety operates a fleet of 11 megayachts, sail cruisers and private luxury yachts that accommodate between 12 and 75 passengers.

      ...

      In addition to gay-focused itineraries, Variety is widening its theme and custom group charter offerings to include interests such as archaeology, food and wine, history and yoga.

      ...

      Variety Cruises was established in 2006 following the merger of Zeus Tours & Yacht Cruises and Hellas Yachts.

      Zeus Tours & Yacht Cruises was a unit of Zeus Tours, which was founded in 1949 by Diogenis Venetopoulos, who owned a Greek travel agency.

    3. Sanktjohanser, Florian (2014-01-23). "Kleines Schiff für kleine Inseln" [Cruise to the Cyclades: Small ship for small islands]. Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Piräus - Die Show auf der "Galileo" beginnt nach dem Frühstück. Zwei Matrosen ziehen an den Tauen, das Großsegel bläht sich im Wind auf. Die Urlauber überhören gerne, dass der Motor weiterbrummt. "Auf diesem Schiff sind die Segel nur zum Angucken", gibt Diogenis Venetopoulos zu. "Der Motor bleibt immer an."

      Der 34-Jährige ist der Chef von Variety Cruises. Sein Großvater gründete die Reederei. Er übersetzte erst griechische Bücher ins Deutsche und brachte ab 1949 deutsche Urlauber nach Griechenland. 1968 baute er ein Fischerboot um und schipperte Gäste zu den Inseln. "Es war chaotisch", sagt Venetopoulos. "Mal lief die Maschine, dann wieder nicht." Den Deutschen gefiel es. An der Route hat sich bis heute nicht viel geändert.

      "Die Schiffe damals waren aus Holz und sehr einfach", sagt Venetopoulos. Verglichen mit modernen Kreuzfahrtschiffen ist auch die "Galileo", 1992 gebaut, rustikal. Aber sie hat einen Vorteil: Sie ist klein, 48 Meter lang, zehn Meter breit, für maximal 49 Passagiere. Damit kann sie auf den einwöchigen Rundfahrten zwischen April und Oktober auch Inseln anlaufen, deren Häfen für andere Schiffe zu seicht und eng sind.

      From Google Translate:

      Piraeus - The show on the "Galileo" starts after breakfast. Two sailors pull on the ropes, the mainsail inflates in the wind. The tourists like to ignore that the engine keeps on humming. "On this ship, the sails are only to watch," admits Diogenis Venetopoulos. "The engine always stays on."

      The 34-year-old is the boss of Variety Cruises . His grandfather founded the shipping company. He first translated Greek books into German and from 1949 brought German tourists to Greece. In 1968 he rebuilt a fishing boat and sailed guests to the islands. "It was chaotic," says Venetopoulos. "The machine ran once, then not again." The Germans liked it. The route has not changed much today.

      "The ships were made of wood and very simple," says Venetopoulos. Compared to modern cruise ships, the "Galileo", built in 1992, is rustic. But it has one advantage: It is small, 48 meters long, ten meters wide, for a maximum of 49 passengers. This means that on the one-week cruises between April and October, it can also sail to islands whose harbors are too shallow and narrow for other ships.

    4. Stallings, Douglas; Kelly, Alexis; Rambow, John, eds. (2013). Fodor's The Complete Guide to European Cruises. New York: Fodor's. p. 298. ISBN 0891419306. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The book notes:

      Variety Cruises. This Greek company is one of the largest operators of small cruise ships worldwide. The 15 vessels in the fleet all vary in size and style. Some of the ships deployed are sailing ships. On board, passengers enjoy locally flavored cuisine and itineraries that blend well-known ports with the hidden gems of the Mediterranean. The company was the result of a merger in 2006 between the two companies Zeus Tours & Yacht Cruises and Hellas Yachts.

    5. Showker, Kate; Sehlinger, Bob (1999). The Unofficial Guide to Cruises 2000. New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 783. ISBN 0028630440. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The book notes:

      Zeus Tours and Cruises

      The Zeus Group, which will mark its fiftieth year in operation in 1998, operates programs in the eastern Mediterranean and South America and wears other hats as well.

      In addition to chartering other vessels, it has some of its own, Zeus I–III (24/48; Greek/European, American; 174 ft.), which sail on seven-day cruises in the Mediterranean in summer and are often chartered for other cruises.

      Galileo Cruises, another member of the group, offers seven-day Greek Isles cruises aboard the sail-cruiser Galileo Sun. Built in 1994, the yacht has a bar-lounge and 18 air-conditioned cabins with private bath and telephone. It carries windsurfers and snorkeling and fishing equipment.

    6. Hilton, Spud (2009-04-05). "Major lines putting new and bigger ships on West Coast". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Variety is the spice: Greek line Variety Cruises said last month that it will offer gay- and lesbian-themed "specialty cruises" starting this summer. Variety, which operates small-ship cruises in the Mediterranean, Aegean and the Red Sea, has scheduled a gay cruise for Aug. 21 and another in August 2010; and a lesbian cruise for July 9-16, 2010. Both voyages are aboard the 49-passenger sail-cruiser Panorama.

      The specific itinerary is at the captain's discretion, but the voyages will probably include stops in Santorini, Mykonos, Folegandros, Poliegos and Kimolos. Activities will include "lengthy swim stops in selected beaches such as in Mykonos, DJ evenings off-board in specific ports of call," according to the company.

    7. Clark, Brian E. (2016-07-22). "This intimate cruise showcases the beauty and culture of Portugal and Spain". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      If you want a more intimate cruise experience on your next trip, Variety Cruises next year is launching an eight-day Glories of Spain & Portugal cruise aboard the 25-cabin Panorama II.

      The cruise will take passengers from Malaga, Spain, to Lisbon, Portugal. Optional excursions include Granada, Ronda, the British colony of Gibraltar, Seville and Jerez de la Frontera, famous for its wines, horse breeding and flamenco music.

    8. Hunt, Carla (1999-09-09). "Zeus' yacht fills the bill for island hopping in Greece". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Looking for a middle ground between deluxe big ship and private charter cruising, I recently asked Zeus Tours if I could sail aboard its 18-cabin Galileo yacht, whose weekly departures from Athens include classic Cycladic islands and off-course ports of call: Santorini, Amorgos, Patmos, Samos, Delos, Mykonos and Kusadasi in Turkey.

      One is always nervous that, as a guest, you might have to say nice things about a cruise experience that didn't add up; a friend of mine and I got lucky, for the Galileo is a big and comfortable motor yacht staffed by a top-notch crew and has a near-perfect itinerary for the first-time, as well as repeat, Greek Islands cruise client.

      ...

      The Zeus Greek Islands Yacht Cruises brochure needs a good rewrite and new photos for agents to sell this program knowledgeably.

      First, the three Zeus yachts are positioned as "casual cruises," and that seemed indeed to be true, for we docked next to two out of the three, and I went aboard both to take a peek.

    9. Macmillan, Sally (2015-02-08). "Top 10 ways to save money on a cruising holiday". Traveller. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      The world's biggest small-ship company, Variety Cruises, has introduced six new itineraries for 2015-16: in the Red Sea, the Greek islands, Turkey, the Canary Islands, the Cape Verde Archipelago and Madagascar. Variety Cruises owns and operates a fleet of 11 boutique ships and motor yachts that carry 44 to 72 guests. The ships offer flexible cruise schedules that allow plenty of time in port, and the itineraries combine well-known destinations with less travelled spots that are inaccessible to bigger vessels. Other destinations Variety Cruises visit are Cuba, the Seychelles and Costa Rica.

    10. Johnston, Brian (2015-10-30). "TV chef Luke Nguyen to plan menu on refurbished AmaLotus river cruise ship". Traveller. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Variety Cruises has just acquired the 17-cabin motor yacht Callisto, which will operate the company's Classical Greece program in the European summer of 2016 (April to October) and the Costa Rica and Panama cruise between December and March. The classic private yacht is being renovated and rebuilt, with new decking, stabilisers and generators, and structural improvements. Variety Cruises is one of the fastest growing small-ship companies and has cruises in Turkey, the Seychelles, the Red Sea and Cuba. It is launching visits to the Canary and Cape Verde islands.

    11. Wilson, Kate (2017-07-03). "This £30million 'mega yacht' will arrive in Poole Harbour this week". Bournemouth Daily Echo. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Variety Cruises, based in Greece, is bringing its flagship vessel, The Variety Voyager, to the port as part of a European stopover tour between June and October.

      Specialising in small ship or ‘mega-yacht’ luxury cruising, Variety is keen to share its ‘small is beautiful’ philosophy for an environmentally friendly impact on ports of call and the ocean.

      Built in 2012, the new-build 68m/223 ft state of the art mega yacht accommodates 72 passengers in 36 cabins and has a crew of 32.

    12. Green, Marilyn (2011-02-03). "Variety Sails Into the Heart of Africa". TravelAge West. Northstar Travel Media. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Variety Cruises, which offers an extensive array of scheduled small ship cruises as well as yacht charters, is stressing its products’ ability to take guests to unusual destinations where they can access an authentic, out-of-the-ordinary experience of local culture.

      ...

      Variety Cruises owns 13 ships — motor yachts and sailing vessels accommodating anywhere from eight to 60 passengers — deployed on seven-night cruises in the Adriatic and Venice, the Red Sea and Egypt and the Black Sea from Odessa and Istanbul.

    13. "Travel firm, subsidiaries seek Chap. 11 protection". The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2003-09-25. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Miami-based Far & Wide Travel Corp. yesterday filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The company's subsidiaries include Adventure Center, African Travel, Brian Moore International Tours, Central Holidays, Far & Wide London, Grand European Tours, High Country Passage, Intercontinental Travel Company, IST Cultural Tours, Journeys Unlimited, Lion World Travel, Pacific Bestour, Peter Voll Associates, Prism Holidays, Regina Tours, Spanish Heritage Tours, Zeus Tours & Yacht Cruises, Tourlite, Swain Tours and Downunder Direct.

    14. Schensul, Jill (2003-10-19). "Bankruptcy underlines changes in insurance". The Record. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      On Jan. 16, 2003, Far & Wide Corp., a high-profile U.S. tour company, gave travel agents a nice surprise: an extra 5-percent commission on European group tours.

      On Sept. 24, Far & Wide issued another surprise: The company was bankrupt.

      Far & Wide was one of the largest travel companies in the United States, the holding company for 21 tour operators, including African Travel, Central Holidays, Grand European Tours, IST Cultural Tours, Journeys Unlimited, Zeus Tours & Yacht Cruises, Tourlite, and Swain Tours. Just two years ago, it boasted sales of $350 million. In announcing its bankruptcy, the company said its earnings would have been less than half that amount by the end of this fiscal year.

    15. Tagliabue, John (1997-05-27). "Rough Going for Greek Merchant Fleet". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Lakis Venetopoulos has found ways to contain labor costs on his yachts. He is the owner and president of the Zeus Group, which hires out yachts, including the $6 million Galileo Sun, for $10,000-a-day cruises for as many as 36 passengers. When he pilots the Galileo to the Seychelles each winter, he brings on board seven Seychellese deckhands in addition to seven Greek officers.

    16. Hartman Ford, Elise (2000-05-28). "Operator Assistance". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

      The article notes:

      Zeus Tours, 800-447-5667, www.zeustours.com. Open since 1948, this company is for the independent traveler looking for air-inclusive packages to Buenos Aires, ski villages or beach resorts.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Variety Cruises to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep covered at books and newspapers/magazines. One just needs to make a Google News, Google Books search. one good book mention as an example. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found tons of coverage and seems to satisfy WP:GNG AmericanAir88(talk) 23:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the excerpts above are the best sources, there are no PR-free Reliable sources for an article. Every one of this is the sort of travel writing athat amounts to public relations for the travel companies. The NYT coverage is inot PR, but is incidendal, to a discussion of the financial aspects of the Greek shipping industry as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Keep Most of Cunard's references are rubbish and often the excerpts omit the bits that confirm the reference is based on a company announcement of fails to be intellectually independent. So while I believe his first reference is good and just about meets the criteria (as it isn't obviously based on the company or an announcement), the second excerpt deceptively omits that the information originates from the company and quotations from a company officer. Either Cunard should simply post the links and their headlines, or be more honest. Leaving that aside, there are enough references (plus I believe the book source mentioned by Gprscrippers is good) to establish notability. HighKing++ 10:32, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shanavas Shanu

[edit]
Shanavas Shanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, most sources are interviews, passing mentions and aside from his role in one show, nothing significant. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:33, 27 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) 16:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento Islamic Mosque

[edit]
Sacramento Islamic Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD notice placed by Baymiwuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who did not complete the AfD nomination process. I am neutral. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 11:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete The only claim to notability doesn't make sense: is this one or nine mosques? Possibly this would be salvagable if the inconsistency were corrected but current state suggests a not-notable organization. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are several mosques .It is not clear how this particular mosque is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article claims that "The Muslim Mosque Association is the oldest mosque in the United States west of the Mississippi River, at 411 V St. in Downtown Sacramento, California." cited to an article in the Sacramento Press and the claim is that it was built in 1946. "oldest" claims can be difficult to prove/disprove, but this one is clearly wrong. The oldest surviving mosque building in the United States is the Mother Mosque of America in Cedar Rapids, built in 1934; Cedar Rapids is west of the Mississippi River. Older American mosques (congregations) exist. The Sacramento Press appears to have been relying on facts supplies by the congregation. It is a local source, and the problem is that it is is the best source in the article. I assume that whoever wrote "oldest" in the article took the word of the newspaper as reliable, but having a page that is clearly wrong on what appears to be this mosque's sole claim to notability is problematic. Mosques, like churches, need to pass WP:GNG. they tend to do so by being very big, very old, architecturally notable, or very significant within a particular religious community or in the career of a notable cleric. I see no indication that this mosque is notable, and no WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11 Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Justice

[edit]
Christianity and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG, promo. The author copied a bit too much from ESWP, giving doubt if he has really used those untranslated source-mentions. The Banner talk 11:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:53, 27 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. This is kind of a frustrating AfD to close. The arguments basically come down to The sources aren't good enough vs. We keep schools. There's disagreement about the quality of the sources and whether they meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural Institute of Ayuuk

[edit]
Intercultural Institute of Ayuuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While some references are from the school's own website, the references from independent reliable sources are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in line with Eastmain above. Jzsj (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I tool the time to look at all of the references. About half are primary sources. The other half show no in-depth coverage, other than two doctoral theses that address the article subject. In summary, there is no independent in-depth reporting, as in journalism, of any kind here. What we have instead is a set of superficial statements cobbled together in order to promote a Jesuit POV. Many of the sources are name checks or verifications that are as short as three word phrases. If you believe I am wrong, I would call upon you to link below my comment the sources that are a) independent of the subject, and b) in-depth.Fails GNG; article is a synthesis of primary sources. 96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources. What reason is there to question the reliability of this succinct report on the university, that is not superficial but a succinct summary of what one needs to know about the institution. Is the contention that none of the more than 1000 Jesuit-founded organizations in the world are independent of one another not open to debate? They are independently owned and directed and operate under independent boards of directors and very often lay presidents.
    And as said above, this reference from an independent, reliable source, along with this brief observation from an independent, academic source, and this dissertation along with this one help establish notability. Jzsj (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here we go again, a centre of a jesuit university must prove that a jesuit centre of another university of the same branch is notable. The next is a story of one of the founders, a nice story about ICT at Ayuuk, and more passing mentions. No independent, in-depth sources. The Banner talk 16:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a degree-awarding institution of higher learning. Not WP:TNT eligible; I don't a point in deleting the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:40, 27 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. Clear consensus to keep. Participants have displayed proper arguments for a keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 17:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aurangzaib Farooqi

[edit]
Aurangzaib Farooqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Politicians are not given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO just because they exist — their ability to qualify for Wikipedia articles is determined by criteria at WP:POLITICIAN. This one fails. Also lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but namedrops, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. --Saqib (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While it is common for party leaders and/or spokespeople to be mentioned in numerous media pieces without any substantive information being provided, this isn't the case here, though the coverage is not great. We have a fair amount of detail; Farooqui is a member of an extremist party; he's contesting a certain election; some analysis gives him a fair chance of winning it; he's been arrested; his candidacy has been challenged legally; he was the subject of an assassination attempt; the attempt provoked a significant strike. This is enough material for a stub, and more than we have on most politicians who have articles simply through meeting WP:NPOL. It doesn't make much sense to refer to it as "name-dropping". Vanamonde (talk) 08:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 11:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the topic is notable via GNG. As a personal editorial, any article that has a "notable clients" section is probably overdue for an overhaul. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Data Propria

[edit]
Data Propria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article does not fail WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS: it has been the subject of full-length news articles in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.
The article does not fail WP:TOOSOON, because it already meets WP:GNG.
The article is not promotional in tone; it merely reports an encyclopaedic summary of the available information from the sources mentioned above.
The article is not a "yellow pages"-style directory entry: it focuses primarily on the issues relevant to the article subject's notability, and does not provide contact details or detailed employee lists, etc.
As such, all of your claimed grounds for deletion seem to be misplaced here, and I hope you will reconsider your position. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of article has received
  1. significant coverage in
  2. multiple
  3. independent,
  4. reliable,
  5. secondary sources.
As such, it meets WP:ORGCRIT (and therefore also WP:GNG). As such, it should be kept. Zazpot (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zazpot. I agree that notability is not inherited, but we have WIRED, Ars Technica, The Wall Street Journal and many more trusted sources writing specifically about this company. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:45, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Venetopoulos

[edit]
Constantine Venetopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Self-created, promotional article based on sources that are either barely mention the subject or aren't independent. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 11:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:46, 27 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 moved to Draft:Chaos Flare. There is a consensus that the article can not remain in mainspace as it is. It can be improved in draft space if sources become available; if it is not improved, it will automatically be deleted as abandoned in six months. bd2412 T 00:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Flare

[edit]
Chaos Flare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a game lacks any sources of any kind. A search on Google News, JSTOR, and newspapers.com doesn't find any. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [87]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. There are numerous citations on the Japanese version of this article. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft for now (unless somebody can translate Japanese sources) and eventually merge content and redirect to a new article on Anime RPGs, an undoubtedly notable topic that will allow relevant content to be brought together in one place. I think this works better than using the List of role-playing games for something other than its intended purpose. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And a request for anyone with a capability to review the sources on the japanese version to do so
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sources means no article. No prejudice against recreation if appropriate sourcing can be found. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gear Antique

[edit]
Gear Antique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a game has had an unresolved notability tag for the preceding five years. Cites no sources. Search of newspapers.com, Google News, and JSTOR fails to find any. Chetsford (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [88]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that 4 different options have been mooted, a relist seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:52, 27 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. I can't really justify closing as "keep" as only Mast3r has really given a confident decision to do so; however the net effect is the same, so it's not a major issue. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Sera

[edit]
Ryu Sera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not assert notability: primary or not relating to her personally. Likely best to revert back to redirect. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, besides her popular involvement in Nine Muses, Sera has recently renewed activites under a new label. I will provide a list of relevant recent solo activites and a few supporting secondary published sources each:

I could provide more, that's just what to came to mind at this moment. And of course, there are heaps of personal articles from her involvement in Nine Muses, but those are better searched under "nine muses sera".

The article in its current form is outdated, incomplete and under construction, so it shouldn't be used to judge. But I'm glad we can entertain the notability question now, before more effort is expended on it. Mast3r (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: Hi, sorry for bothering. But I don't know if you're watching this page and I wanted to ask what you think :) I want to start reworking the article so I'm looking for opinions. Thank you. Mast3r (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just rework the article and get it to standard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Without use of bolded !votes, my reading of this is a fairly balanced short discussion at the moment, so I feel a relist is warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discuss the sources provided by Mast3r.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 10:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The uncontested rebuttal of the sources carries the day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Phillips (basketball)

[edit]
Brandon Phillips (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a significant player in the newly-formed Junior Basketball Association, as he averaged 1.8 points per game for the Los Angeles Ballers and was cut from the team. The only reason he has been in the news as of late is because the JBA has been stiffing him 2/3 of his salary, which hardly warrants an article. In terms of significant coverage, there is one Los Angeles Times profile of him joining the JBA and that's about it which is specifically about him. I would suggest a redirect to Los Angeles Ballers but since he is no longer on the team, it wouldn't make sense so we can just have a blurb in the history section. As it stands I would be happy to withdraw this if he signs with some other pro team but I think that is unlikely. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Premise of nomination is flawed. There are two in-depth Los Angeles Times articles about Phillips ([89], [90]), not just one, as the nominator stated. The recent articles about the JBA stiffing him are more than passing mentions of Phillips and would qualify under WP:GNG. Also, a player's performance in the JBA does not affect notability at all. Rather it's only a matter of whether it meets GNG. Runningibis (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:33, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilo Center for Education, Organization, and Promotion of Development

[edit]
Ilo Center for Education, Organization, and Promotion of Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, promo. Largely based on the own website. The Banner talk 09:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no indication of notability. Searches, even with less specific search terms like "Ilo Center" or "CEOP Ilo", turn up nothing relevant (though the International Labour Organisation did show up in the books search). Assuming the search at La República does what I think it does, this probably could have went through PROD no problems as an uncontroversial deletion. Most of the sources in the article barely even mention the center. WP:NOBLE applies. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alpha3031 hits all relevant points perfectly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:15, 28 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) 16:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4G World

[edit]
4G World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. Unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 19:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only two comments; a third may be necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 07:37, 27 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 List of Autobots. No sure what User:Christiancardenas732 was (not) seeing. It looks like it's listed there to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guzzle

[edit]
Guzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exceedingly minor Transformers character, with no decent sources cited and no evidence of independent, real-world notability. The article was previously turned into a redirect to a list article, but it was then restored without any explanation (i.e., without any claim that the subject actually is notable) with a request for an AfD discussion. So here it is. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 07:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 07:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guzzle (Transformers) is still a redirect to List of Autobots... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 28 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nowlive

[edit]
Nowlive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

KeralaWikiman (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As regards statement below, G11 no longer applies, as there is a safe revision to revert to. However, I do believe that WP:NCORP still stands, as while there were many short mentions, the only significant articles I could find didn't satisfy independent. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SkyGazer 512 - an editor after my own heart and better. I usually check recent revisions, but didn't follow it back far enough. You are right in that my sweep didn't go far enough. I'll review on the NCORP basis now Nosebagbear (talk)
Tbh, I was actually about to !vote for speedy delete as well, until I just happened to check the history and was curious to see what the first revision looked like. I've noticed what happened to this article happens surprisingly often - an article is created with little issues, and a COI editor (often paid) rewrites it to make it completely promotional, and it isn't noticed for years or ever - another example of this that I recently found is this.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - minor, non-notable streaming technology. Article is pure promotional puffery. As noted it is "under new management" which likely accounts for its commercial tone. Can find no article that discusses the company or technology in any meaningful way. --LeflymanTalk 15:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's two articles under "Press Coverage" that are somewhat strong: the USA today article and the Techcrunch article. The rest are passing mentions or blogs. The Techcrunch article is arguably not significant or reliable. Most of it's based on company marketing materials, and it's extremely short. I don't think it discusses the topic in enough detail to warrant counting as a source that supports notability. The USA Today article has about 4 paragraphs that discuss the app directly, but two of them are the CEO's quotes and a third is about what LMG "plans to do". Basically, all we have from these two sources is that this app can livestream in a grid of a few screens at once. Not a strong case for notability, and in my opinion fails WP:ORGCRITE. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:33, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Stone Appears

[edit]
A Stone Appears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Does not seem to have independent references for this film. Sources currently on the article do not even mention this film. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence was brought forth which supports notability for this Austrian political party. Sources don't have to be in English, but consensus is delete as no substantial sources in any language have been presented. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Electoral Community

[edit]
Christian Electoral Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. Contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Multiple sources available from the German language version of the article- similarly, there is news coverage in German-language sources. There are also references to the CWG in a couple books on Google Books and a mention in at least one academic paper. In need of work, but could be updated and verified by an editor with appropriate language skills. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The paper I think you mean is about a Bavarian party that happens to share the name but is otherwise unrelated. Same goes for any non-trivial mentions I see on Google Books. Damvile (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I see coverage in multiple independent secondary sources but I'm unable to find any significant coverage, so I think the CWG fails the general notability guideline. For example, there are at least three reputable Austrian broadsheets that have mentioned the CWG at some point... but only in passing, as one of several failed also-rans in a table of election results. Damvile (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Borromeo

[edit]
Christian Borromeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP which has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. IMDB is not reliable. Contested BLPPROD.   — Jeff G. ツ 13:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: I added the English one, but I can't read Italian, so I invite you to sofixit with the Italian ones.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Abaya

[edit]
Matthew Abaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable filmmaker lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Far from it. The individual is not associated with ..."significant or well-known work or collective body of work." A couple of short films and ONE "feature film" is far, far, far from a "significant" body of work and neither are well-known. Additionally, none of the work has, "...(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Your statement supporting inclusion into Wikipedia is false and misleading. reddogsix (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:01, 27 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) 20:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child Labour Programme of Action

[edit]
Child Labour Programme of Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simple definition, unsourced, unlinked, parochial, and unedited for a decade or so. What’s to like? Qwirkle (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 23:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 06:00, 27 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 10:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Wait (Mirwais song)

[edit]
I Can't Wait (Mirwais song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:NSONG. SummerPhDv2.0 15:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing that this meets WP:NSONG. None of the sources I'm able to find are independent, reliable, and signficantly cover the topic.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:59, 27 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 Illa J. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Past Midnite

[edit]
4 Past Midnite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Illa J. The EP doesn't seem to get any reliable coverage more than a line or two that I could find. Beyond that GNG failing, no particular criterion of NSONG (which EPs seem to fall under) seemed satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:59, 27 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cavite Choral

[edit]
Cavite Choral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a university choir from Barbados has had no sources for the preceding 11 years. A BEFORE of Google News and Google Books fails to find any either under "Cavite Choral" or "Cavite Chorale" or "Cavite Choir" except one performance review in Barbados Today [96]. Chetsford (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:58, 27 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. More specifically, per Axl, merge with Antimetrino. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metrino

[edit]
Metrino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unproven concept with minimal RS coverage. Metrino claims to have agreements and plans with multiple cities but none have panned out. –dlthewave ☎ 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 07:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first reference is the company's own website and therefore unsuitable to establish notability. I am not able to view the archive of the second reference. However the title and the referring text seem to imply that the source is a presentation given by the inventor of the system. If this is indeed the case, then this reference is also unsuitable to establish notability. The third reference mentions Metrino alongside two other companies. The fourth reference is directly relevant.
I also found this source.
So we have two (or at best, three) suitable sources that might help to establish notability. Of these, one source says that Metrino is due to be built in India, while a more recent source says that Metrino won't be built in India. In my opinion, this is inadequate to establish general notability for Wikipedia. (As an aside, from the article's title, I was expecting it to be about a hypothetical subatomic particle.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:58, 27 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. bd2412 T 17:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Hetharia

[edit]
Tara Hetharia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, no reliable independent sources, fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Innisfree987 (talk) 05:57, 27 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Odommo bangladesh Foundation

[edit]
Odommo bangladesh Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has notability and tone issues. It has no references and so does not establish organizational notability. It reads like an information brochure. The inclusion of the Vision Statement, Mission Statement, and Belief Statement is promotional. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits such as LinkedIn, and also local newspaper coverage that appears to be in the nature of press releases.

Tagged for PROD, but PROD was removed, so nominated for AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:16, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeasePlan

[edit]
LeasePlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Only sources on this topic fall under one of the examples of trivial coverage listed at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Examples of trivial coverage. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:31, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Pries

[edit]
Ken Pries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This sports executive is often quoted in stories about the team he works for, but I'm unable to find significant coverage of him specifically. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:31, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Penczak

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Christopher Penczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd previously tagged for questionable notability and still cannot find significant coverage; only one source has been added. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:30, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Skains

[edit]
Lyle Skains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonremarkable person that does not qualify under WP:AUTHOR. 1l2l3k (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:30, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Own the Night Tour

[edit]
Own the Night Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NTOUR --woodensuperman 09:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:30, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ESP George Lynch

[edit]
ESP George Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, unedited, and unneeded. Worth a sentence or two in the articles on the designer and the manufacturer. Qwirkle (talk) Qwirkle (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:29, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man's Best Friend (1998 film)

[edit]
Man's Best Friend (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This animation is not notable. It appeared on MTV's cartoon sushi but so did many other short animations. The named award it is claimed to have won is not notable as it is an internal college award. The article is written from a bias point of view ("voice recording legend", "several 1st prize film awards") and is not objective. There is nothing to show this short film is notable in any way. ツStacey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:29, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Essaid

[edit]
Rami Essaid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business person. Singificant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, WP:SPIP and / or not independent of his company, the article on which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distil Networks. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:27, 27 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Music Education Bloggers

[edit]
Music Education Bloggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. While musical education and blogging are obviously notable fields, it's not clear from a search of the available sources that there is enough for an encyclopedic article on the subject. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 02:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88(talk) 05:26, 27 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) Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin G. DeYoung

[edit]
Colin G. DeYoung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Academic who does not seem to meet notability criteria for professors or the WP:GNG. Website doesn't have a full CV, but searching "Colin DeYoung awards" shows he won a Jeffery S. Tanaka Dissertation Award from the Association for Research in Psychology (not to be confused with an award by the same name but with different criteria awarded by the American Psychological Association) in 2006 for his dissertation, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; we don't have an article on the award or the awarding institution, the awarding institution was founded in 2001 but first awarded the honor in 1993 (with a 3 year hiatus from 2000 to 2003) which is weird to say the least, and searching "Tanaka dissertation award" yields coverage almost entirely of the APA's award (and a similarly named award in the field of physics) not the ARP that the subject won. The claim to "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is referenced to the subject's personal website. Publications have a number of citations on google scholar, but I've yet to find a secondary source saying there's been a "significant impact" positive or negative. As for the GNG, the subject is name checked in some popular press articles on studies they published, but the coverage is of the study, not the subject of the article. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 27 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. Redirect at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Verschoyle

[edit]
Joseph Verschoyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bishops of major churches organized on a geographic basis, such as the Church of England (or the Anglican Church of Ireland) are presumed to be notable here. I do not think we have ever extended this to archdeacons, who at least in the modern era are always subsidiary officials over part of a diocese, and there is no other evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove
  • delete I am aware that archdeacons vary in function across the church but I don't see how we can justify the notability of someone who appears in routine and exhaustive cataloguing, and nowhere else. The list of ostensibly similar cases I take merely as an invitation for reconsideration. Mangoe (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Comparison
these were kept:
John Plemth was a late medieval figure, -- and sometimes archdeacons were more important in that period --see our article on archdeacons
David Booth was Honorary Chaplain to the Queen, which the AfD considered important-- I do not, there are 33 of them at a time. & only 4 have WP articles.
George Cameron wrote several books, and had an obit in the London Times , which we consider a gold standard for notability
Keating I consider an unjustified keep, based on the argument that they were important in the 19th century,wfor which there is no evidence. I note he was promoted to Dean, and it was accepted in the afd that Deans are not necessarily notable.
Thomas Tuttebury was kept on the basis he was Dean of Wells. (if he was, the data is unclear)
Thomas de Bodham was kept in the absence of argument to delete at the AfD , though there were only listings.
This was deleted:
Tim Raphael
This is currently be discussed at  ::Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove
The earlier discussion on the basis of which some of them were kept is at [98]. The question is basically at what level we want to cover people, for we can adjust the way we interpret the guideline at NBIO to match what we want. But I think there's an obvious solution as provided for by one of the less noticed portions at WP:N, which is merging into a combination article. Doingthis could avoid a great many discussions here which could reasonably go either way. The problem is that discussions here are in practice the only way to force such merges. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers , headnote, A discussion at the village pump in 2013 overwhelmingly concluded the current proposed mergers system (the process & templates) to be inadequate. A consequent discussion on implementation of an automated system similar to requested moves was archived after 2 months of inactivity. The latter discussion had 6 participants; no conclusion was reached. At present, those manually listed here link to discussions at the article talk pages, which is ineffective except for much-watched articles. The only effective way of doing anything involving an alternative to deletion is here at AfD, because this is where more people pay attention. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 27 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. All suggestions that the subject is notable have been refuted Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey BASE

[edit]
Joey BASE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy any of the WP:MUSICBIO or ANYBIO criteria nor GNG. The on page apparent claims of notability fall short. While played on national stations he does not appear to have been in rotation (as musicbio requires). This is also backed up by tweets. Headlining at a music festival is not a national tour. Being represented by someone who has represented notable acts does not impute notability. I think this addresses the claims made on the page. My WP:BEFORE suggests lack of other ways of satisfying GNG, MUSICBIO, or ANYBIO. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Joey's tracks 'living in the moment' & 'Summer Rain' amongst others have been Playlisted on National radio rotation on Sacha Brooks night show on Capital FM.

https://twitter.com/capitalbrum/status/951500150404407296?s=19

I think Joey is a notable musician he is really up and coming and up coming very fast Every Day I find new info on him, I will keep updating he has alot of notable attributes but because he is up and coming they are not all documented hence why alot of the references are from verified account tweets as of and when the info is available all will be added. He's instagram account is also verified not that holds any weight here just to show that it is worth discussing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandie20182018 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)— Sandie20182018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Up and coming may mean WP:TOSOON. The link to his songs being put into rotation is just the twitter account of a radio station, but doesn't link to an actual tweet. @Sandie20182018:, could you please link to the specific tweet that discusses the actual subject of the article? Ross-c (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Ross-c: on the 11th January 2018 Capital FM Brum official twitter tweeted their playlist and (@joeybasen2s) is the 7th in the list mention link is:

https://twitter.com/capitalbrum/status/951500150404407296?s=19

https://twitter.com/capitalbrum/status/1021780068790673408?s=19 Just a point to be noted every one mentioned is world class and has a wiki page he is amongst the greats at such an early start in his career. I think he deserves a wiki page. I've also just notted one of Joey BASE'S Music video has over 2.9Million views "Pattern Up"

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the requirements in WP:MUSICBIO. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The suggestions that he meets criteria #11 "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network." are not proven. Rotation refers to repeated airing during the day and not just being played repeatedly by one DJ. Also there is a bit of misrepresentation about the radio shows on which he was featured. The Sacha Brooks show only goes out on Capital Birmingham since 15 July 2012 and not nationally. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:47, 27 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. WP:A7. SoWhy 07:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsuddin Patel

[edit]
Shamsuddin Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of non-notable businessman. Google search finds nothing independent, only this article and the usual vanity hits such as LinkedIn and Facebook. Tone issues as well as notability issues. Real purpose seems to be to provide spam links. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as already posted. Saying that a guy who started his own non-notable businesses is the founder of those non-notable businesses is not a credible claim of significance. Likewise for a guy who cites a non-notable app or website he created. Otherwise, every self-employed person who incorporates and every developer who uploads an app to iTunes or Google Play or launches a website would be immune to A7, which is kind of silly. Largoplazo (talk) 03:15, 27 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. bd2412 T 02:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SE Ranking

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
SE Ranking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable company. The references are Crunchbase (generally agreed to not be suitable for meeting WP:CORPDEPTH) and a sponsored post by this company. Other coverage (such as The Next Web [99] or BoingBoing [100]) is also sponsored/promo/commission sales. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There were initially 11 references, most of which were even spammier. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gogashville44 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)so, if you are suggesting to delete my page you have to be fair and delete all the others that are very similar to mine. i've removed all the promo content, added links to significant resource (and might find some more); the info in this article does bring valuable information to wiki readers. some examples of the very similar companies as the one I'm writing about (and it's just a very few I've picked from the same category): SEMrush Serpstat Sprinklr Profile Defenders SocialFlow Moz (marketing software) Brand.com Wpromote — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogashville44 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources fdo not meet the standards of WP:NCORP--they seem mostly to be based on press releases or offer only incidental coverage. But I do agree with yje article contributor that a good number of the other articles they mention probably should be deleted also. We have quite a bit on junk in WP, accumulated when standards were lower; it will take a while to remove all of it, but the least we can do is not add tp it. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 3 September 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. The problem is that people believe there ought to be sources to improve the article, but have had difficulty locating them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Chin

[edit]
Animal Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBAND. Hard to find any reliable sources online.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for keeping do not carry much weight, see WP:MUSTBESOURCES.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll note that the AMG source substantiates the notability claim of the Fueled By Ramen releases; there's no verifiability issue there, and that's all that's needed to meet WP:MUSIC. Additional sources would be nice to dig up, bit strictly speaking wouldn't be necessary. Chubbles (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't been able to find any significant sources apart from one entry in AllMusic. A short bio in AllMusic is not enough to establish notability. Search for the albums of the band also reveals a lack of sources, those articles may need to be deleted as well. Hzh (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's all that helpful to divide FBR's tenure as a label in this way, but even if we did, it's worth noting that before releasing From Under the Cork Tree, the album that launched FBR into the stratosphere, the label put out CDs by Less Than Jake (of course, since the group founded the label), Jimmy Eat World, Punchline, and Gym Class Heroes, among others. Chubbles (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Fueled by Ramen wasn't with Warner at that time, therefore the band's albums were indie label releases. The wording in the guideline in any case is that it may be notable (rather than it is notable) if it meets one of the criteria. The lack of sources make it difficult to argue that it qualifies per WP:GNG. Someone with access to magazine archives can try to find sources for the band, otherwise I don't think it can be considered notable. Hzh (talk) 00:13, 4 September 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. It's clear that footbridges can be notable (see Category:Footbridges). The question is whether this one is, and there's no real agreement on whether the sources are good enough to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Footbridge

[edit]
Flora Footbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pedestrian bridge under construction; references are ordinary coverage of government permits. Flora MacDonald (politician) is a possible redirect target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer talk 07:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GEOFEAT says " ...(bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG." and I believe this passes GNG as is. The fact that it is named after a very notable Canadian politician means that it will surely get more coverage at its inauguration (no need for a WP:Crystal ball for that I think). I have moved the page to its official name Passerelle Flora Footbridge as per the city of Ottawa source and the Mainstreamer source. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GEOFEATI added this page because a) There was a link to it on the Rideau Canal page (the link was not added by me); b) There was an unlinked reference to it on the Flora MacDonald (politician) page (which I turned into a link); c) The Rideau Canal is a UNESCO cultural heritage site, and all its bridges in Ottawa are in Wikipedia, including Corktown Footbridge downstream, so it seemed odd not to have a parallel article; d) The span is complete as of this past July (I was planning to add a picture to Commons) and attach it; e) There is additional history (to be added) about this bridge. With regard to the naming: I note that the Corktown Footbridge is also officially Passerelle Corktown Footbridge, yet the Wikipedia article's title is just Corktown Footbridge (and gives the French name as the alternative), hence the naming I used. That would be consistent with the way other geographical features in Ottawa are referenced in Wikipedia. Another example is Adàwe Crossing, a third footbridge in the area. Timothy C. Lethbridge (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources in English call it "Passerelle Flora Footbridge" there is no reason to remove the first word. The French version of the town's article on the footbridge also calls it Passerelle Flora Footbridge. It is WP:COMMONNAME that decides how the articles are titled. I haven't looked at the other articles but here the common name is clearly Passerelle Flora Footbridge. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of this has anything to do with WP:GNG though - the Ottawa source is WP:PRIMARY and there's a decent question about the reliability of the source of a local community newspaper. SportingFlyer talk 01:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dom from Paris. Satisfies GNG and part of a UNESCO cultural heritage site. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because we have an article on the Rideau Canal. James500 (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bridges are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because of who they're named after or what they happen to cross over — and GEOFEAT does not say that bridges get an automatic notability freebie just for existing, either, it says they're considered notable if they clear WP:GNG on the sourcing. But the sources here are a primary source from the city's own website, the local neighbourhood pennysaver and a 148-word blurb in the local daily — which means two of them are not support for notability at all, while the third is a start toward getting this over GNG but not substantive enough to carry it over the finish line all by itself as the only GNG-eligible source in play. This doesn't necessarily have to have grand claims of architectural or historic uniqueness to qualify, though those certainly wouldn't hurt — the absolute minimum baseline that it has to meet is clearing GNG on the sources, but these sources aren't clearing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat above - falls far short of GNG. MB 02:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on coverage so far, AGF on assertions of further coverage already available, and while it is also reasonable to expect there will be more coverage as this is completed and opened. For those who prefer to get rid of this as a separate article, a different way forward would be to create a section in Rideau Canal or a separate article on crossings of the Rideau Canal, where this could possibly be covered instead, to which this could be merged.--Doncram (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "coverage so far" is demonstrating notability at all? None of the sources present here are good enough as it stands, and nobody's shown any evidence in this discussion of stronger sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this should not be deleted outright. At worst it could be moved to Crossings of the Rideau Canal (which I assume is obviously acceptable as a list-article) for expansion. We are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’. The article creator should please go ahead and upload photo(s), which would have forestalled any AFD. It is a major, elegant, multimillion dollar bridge befitting the capital city. Photo in one of sources given makes all that clear, at least for Participants of AFDs about major footbridges such as one near San Francisco recently. Many nondescript dumpy concrete slab or girder footbridges are not notable, but major elegant architectural works are. Also please round up a price tag. —Doncram (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Photos of a subject don't magically forestall AFD discussion all by themselves, if the referencing isn't up to scratch. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see a link to the policy that articles with photos cannot be deleted, even if (like this one) they don't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 19:36, 1 September 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) 15:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Rash

[edit]
Nicole Rash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have undertaken a major copyedit to try and relieve the most obvious issues of this article but apart from a couple of small mentions in local newspapers there does not appear to be enough significant coverage in multiple third party sources to meet WP:BIO ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  02:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister USA

[edit]
Mister USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not found sufficient coverage to suggest this organization/competition meets WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common Expression Language

[edit]
Common Expression Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google open-source project that does not appear to have significant independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 22:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors worked with Balaji Telefilms

[edit]
List of actors worked with Balaji Telefilms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quasi-promotional, sourced only to an infotainment slideshow-article. I don't see why a list of all actors on all shows by this company is a good topic; the shows themselves will list the actors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:24, 27 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 Gala Inc.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satoru Kikugawa

[edit]
Satoru Kikugawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was only able to find two sources about him ([101], [102]) which have barely any information outside of the fact that he is the chairman and director of various companies. Does he meet WP:NBIO? Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 00:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am ok if this article gets deleted. I understand the reasons and agree with them. Thanks for flagging this article, Laurel Wreath of Victors

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:26, 27 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 and redirect to Polymath. There is a clear consensus that this article should not exist. There is some disagreement as to what should be done with the content, but it is properly noted that the present content of the article reflects arbitrary rules of inclusion, rather than conforming to a reliably sourced externally generated meaning of the term. Therefore, the content is deleted rather than being merged, and the title is redirected as a reasonable target for this search term. bd2412 T 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of polymaths

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of polymaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite an excellent attempt by Sammylor095, I don't think this is a plausible topic for an article. The list is unavoidably original research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 00:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After observing the arguments below. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect, definitely not 'Keep' or even 'Merge' to any substantial extent. This is WP:OR, plain and simple. Many lists suffer from a lack of clearcut inclusion criteria, but that is not the case here. This one has stringent criteria, ". . . polymath[s] listed here must have notable achievements within at least five out of thirteen subcategories, including at least one arts subcategory." The problem is encapsulated in my immediate response on reading seeing that, "Says who?" As the list itself is really a table demonstrating how they fulfill the arbitrary categories underlying the arbitrary criteria, I don't see how anything here can be saved except the names themselves, and even then they would need a direct citation to some WP:RS calling them a polymath, rather than basing it on what we find in Wikipedia articles, as has been done here. Do we keep the namespace and replace all the content? I would say no. The fact is that there are no hard and fast criteria of what makes someone a polymath, and we are better off giving a small number of specific examples on Polymath than trying to list anyone who has ever been called a polymath by anyone. Agricolae (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure this has to be OR, as we could instead make the inclusion criterion be about published sources that use the exact word "polymath". But I don't think doing that would be a good idea and in any case inclusion in this list is too subjective (whether it be the opinion of our editors or our sources' authors) to make a good Wikipedia list. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Agricolae and David Eppstein. Often, lists are problematic because the inclusion criteria are vague, while in this case, the criterion is specific, but arbitrary. The result reads more like a forgettable blog post than anything that can be edited into being an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments made above: the inclusion criteria are specific but arbitrary; any set of criteria would necessarily be either subjective or arbitrary, whether developed by Wikipedians or the authors of outside sources. Cnilep (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, noting that there are already some examples (with pictures) at the main article, and a more substantial merge may run into the same issues re. inclusion criteria. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:31, 1 September 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. If people want it to be userfied they can ask at WP:REFUND; I won't userfy without an username. Draftification at administrator discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Body (Into the Dark)

[edit]
The Body (Into the Dark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems premature for an episode of a television series to exist when the series has yet to premiere especially in the situation where all coverage of said episode is about the series in general. The article as it exists is a lightly sourced stub that fails WP:NTV and WP:TVEP. Yes we have individual entries for individual episodes of other TV shows but, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that does not mean that this article needs to exist. It may very well be the case that the an article will be warranted for this episode eventually but now does not seem to be the time. BoogerD (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [for the same issues listed above]:[reply]

Flesh & Blood (Into the Dark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 03:26, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_27&oldid=1142616976"