Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 May	28 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Rorcal. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome (EP)

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

As per WP:NALBUM this does not seem to be notable - googling it produces very few links, none of which seem to be particularly notable; the EP does not seem to have been nominated or received any awards or reached the top of any music charts or anything similar. Nerd1a4i (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band page, Rorcal, as per wp:nalbum. Not enough coverage to show it meets wp:gng. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rorcal. No evidence of notability, and nothing in this stub worth merging. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rorcal. Lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabhar

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

Article may be a hoax. No proof that this creature exists or that an actual legend exists. Rogermx (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are able to translate this link makes mention of such snake and it's the only one i could find. It's nothing in depth or thorough but this is what i was able to roughly translate " Basilisk comes from a snake egg, Arabhar. I don't know how true that is. Edidiong (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This strongly appears to be a hoax. The link mentioned above appears to be some kind of fantasy book for children, just like beautiful "dragon books" with made-up facts exist. The existence of these books is a nice thing, and I loved reading these as a child, but they are far from being reliable sources for this article. From the book description on Google Play, translated using Google Translator:

For some, the legendary or mythological creatures presented in this book are believed to exist, but can not be proven. Some people think it is extinct and can not be proven in a real way. The rest are creatures of belief, cultural custom, and religion. In addition, not a few of mythological creatures are the product of human imagination in the past, when they have not been able to explain anything.

The original source of the first revision of this article was a Wikia page: http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Arabhar

I can't take this seriously; it might even be worth considering to speedily delete it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of reliable sources WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Knobbly (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of possiblys and maybes and not a good source in existence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fuko

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norminator Edidiong (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of trivia, which is the only standard where this article would pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norminator --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Movies

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

Purely promotional article about non-notable company. Article creator, who I suspect of being WP:PAID, copied some of the more puffery-laden content directly from this press release (a primary source). I've removed and RevDel-ed the content.

The article creator described the company thusly: "Champion Movies has been considered to be an upcoming leading film company of Eastern India." Upcoming and leading? Anyway, that stuff has been deleted.

The only references in the article before I started meddling with it were Erosnow.com, Newsfolo.com, a blog I've never heard of in the context of Indian films, and this dailyhunt.in, which is just a reprint of this press release. (Dailyhunt.in is a content harvester. They just take other people's content and republish it.)

I can find no significant, independent coverage of this company from reliable sources. Searching for "Champion Movies" "Ritum Jain" (a key person according to the infobox) produces no results. Combining "Champion Movies" with "Bengali" produces no significant hits and "Champion Movies" "Jawker Dhan", what the article described as "a huge box office hit", produces no significant hits either.

Thus, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and I think the article creator would be inclined to claim inherited notability for the films they produced, but we know that is not sufficient. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No significant, independent coverage of this company in any third party reliable sources --Adamstraw99 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- There was television show talking about the production of Champion Movies in an Indian channel. It is a fully new film company in eastern india, so it has no search results in google or other search enfines. But in that television show, during an interview of Ritum Jain and the company, the show distributors cleanly said about its good production quality though it has only two films released in Bengali theaters but has ready gained a great fame but not in internet. As there are only two productions so it is not so popular now in news and media now, but I think soon it will be.

I did not know daily hunt as a copy publisher of other website. So I made a reference of that.

If the article meets the criteria for deleting an article, then delete it. In future I will definitely try to create the article if more acceptable references came out.

AnkurWiki (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles on a supposition that a topic will be notable one day, we create articles on subjects that are already notable. And, we don't use primary sources like interviews and promotional literature like press releases to establish notability. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is the most fundamental rule when creating articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only two productions as well as not passing WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 20:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fictional lost worlds

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

Appears to be mainly WP:OR. "Lost world" is not really a scientific term that you can use to classify places. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lost world is strictly fictional. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. There is no mention or definition of what a 'fictional lost world' is. Ajf773 (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i think the article creator may have been referring to areas that give rise to Reproductive isolation, that may be reasonable to have a list article about so a rename to something like "List of reproductive isolated locations" could be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. A reasonable list can't be made for anything close to this. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Braffet

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Edidiong (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both GNG and our overbroad notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this passes WP:NFOOTBALL (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 01:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Tedros

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played for Eritrea at international level, as mentioned in the article itself and at Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Has played at international level for Eritrea.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a senior international fixture for Eritrea. Kosack (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL, based on soccerway evidence. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:NFOOTBALL appears to be different. "in a competitive senior international match at confederation level" - It appears Tedros has only competed in regional tournaments within Africa, which would seem to indicate failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The CECAFA Cup matches would appear to be FIFA sanctioned matches according to NFT. Even so, he also played in two World Cup qualifiers for Eritrea in 2011 according to NFT and Soccerway which would certainly pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL by appearing in several Tier 1 matches. The "regional tournament" criteria is an alternative to, not an additional requirement of, the Tier 1 requirement. For instance, someone who appeared in a CONCACAF Gold Cup match between Martinique and the United States would meet that criteria even though it's not a FIFA Tier 1 match due to Martinique not being a FIFA member. But he still meets the first part of #1, and, as others have pointed out, the second part as well even though he only needs to meet one par.t Smartyllama (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL as international footballer for Eritrea.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTBALL Zanoni (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 16:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As failing WP:GNG. NFOOTBALL is only a presumption, not an automatic pass, as it clearly states in bold characters. Google reveals little significant information, all I could find consisting mostly of trivial mentions (stats, appearances, etc.). Two articles in German newspapers (both from Wiesbaden, Wiesbadener Tagesblatt and Wiesbadener Kurier) seem to refer to an Eritrean by the name of "Tedros Abraham", but the age (19 yrs old as of 2018) is wrong, and he is a referee (Schiedsrichter), not a player - so wrong guy. Lacking any form of significant coverage, and unless somebody can snatch out some Eritrean newspapers (???), clearly fails WP:GNG. Redirect to Eritrea national football team seems more appropriate given current status. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scored a goal in 2014 World Cup qualifying. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Added a source to help improve the article. Also found an interview in Eritrean. SportingFlyer talk 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source which mentions him scoring a goal is a trivial mention, i.e. not enough to meet WP:GNG. If that interview is online, a link would be appreciated so we can check it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He scored a goal in 2014 World Cup qualifying Preeliminary Round vs Rwanda as stated in [1] and [2]]. Also stated in [[3]] he played in 5 matches for Eritrea, 2 of which were in WCQ 2014. More importantly, he is on FIFA website [[4]]. So he passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Need improving on article, not deleting --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires in-depth coverage. As I mentioned above, NFOOTBALL is a presumption, and a scorecard mention (literally only his name and the time in the game [90' or 89', sources don't quite agree] when he scored) of scoring a goal is rather WP:TRIVIALMENTION... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the nominator mentioned WP:NFOOTBALL for the reason of AfD nomination. The player passes for this. And second, coverage should not only based on google search result, especially when language becomes a barrier, or in a country where most news is availble in paper-based version, not available online. Then perhaps better to say, it cannot decided he passes GNG or not, for now. But surely he passes NFOOTBALL, which is the reason of this AfD nomination --Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 10:37, 3 June 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 both Learning by teaching and Jean-Pol Martin, which was added to the nomination halfway through. – Joe (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learning by teaching

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

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

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

This is advertising for neuro-woo complete with HOWTO instructions, mostly edited by its chief real-world propagator and sourced only to in-bubble refs. Please see top editors in editing statistics. It is easy to see that WP is being abused for promotion when the organization's website actually directs people to WP, as the website for this does. This needs a complete overhaul, if it even meets GNG. Hence, TNT. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has great notability, especially in the German language as Lernen durch Lehren. For an example of a good source in English, see Learning by Teaching: Evidence-based Strategies to Enhance Learning in the Classroom, which was written by respectable educationalists. Note that the topic has equivalent articles in 11 other Wikipedias besides this one and that's a good clue that we should have this too. Once again, note that WP:TNT is not policy; not even a guideline; it's just a disruptive essay. Our actual policies include: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And keep Jean-Pol Martin too as it seems fairly clear that the subject passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Could you explain the process by which you located those sources. It would also be a good idea to disclose whether you have personally read them and explain how they demonstrate the significant impact of Martin's work. Given your history of claiming to be familiar with scholarly literature in a wide variety of fields when articles in those fields come to AFD, I am unfortunately forced to be skeptical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to another edition of "People who don't get how notability on Wikipedia works nominating obviously notable, and thus applicable, articles for deletion." Seriously, there's two freaking independent sources mainly covering this topic ([5], the link Andrew D. gave above, and many non-online sources cited in the "selective descriptions and researches" of this article). Close the nomination as a Keep immediately and block the nominator for his incorrect and uninformed reasoning towards deletion the article. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, I'm amazed that there were so many morons willing to delete notable articles in the first place for reasons having nothing to do with notability (Simpsonwave and Tea Lizard). This nomination is only adding further salt to this wound, and it needs to STOP!!!! NOW!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 23:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: could you please save this article too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pol_Martin? Thank you very much for your competence! Jeanpol (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in this case, I couldn't find any independent sources about you not written by you, so you're on your own there. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. In German there are a lot of independent sources, but not in English I guess. Anyway. The most important thing is to maintain "Learning by teaching"! Jeanpol (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to some German newspapers or magazines that have provided significant coverage please. Someone can then run them through Google translator and see what they say. And do any textbooks use your teaching method or mention you? Dream Focus 21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This for instance? SPIEGEL (link redacted), or this? DIE ZEIT (link redacted) or this? Treibhäuser der Zukunft, or this? GOETHE and this? Lille (link redacted), and this? Japan or this Karlsruhe Jeanpol (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several links that violate the WP:COPYLINK policy and noted that within your post - you cannot link to sites that violate other people's copyright. The Spiegel piece has substantial discussion so is fine; the Zeit piece is also fine. Not sure who is Trang Luu (the youtube poster) is? The Goethe Haus piece is OK; freelance writer, easily a placed piece, but OK. There is not enough in the COPYLINK post about the Lille newpaper articles to cite them. Sorry. The last one is a post on your blog. Not independent. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC) So that is two good ones, one OK one. We still need to blow up the current article and re-do it; what is there is hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the many compliments, User:EditorE. :) this is a primary source by someone who implemented the method and describes the results. Not secondary as is required to meet N. It is also "in-bubble" so not really independent. The nomination, btw, was about this page, and calls for a complete rewrite aka TNT. Someone ~might~ be able to write a decent WP article about this but they would have to start over from scratch. This is just an extension of the website of the progenitor - one big violation of WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same problems, but worse.
- Jean-Pol Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

pinging the people who have !voted thus far: user:Andrew Davidson, [[User:EditorE, User:Jeanpol, and added "Biography" to the sorter in the header Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. Here is a translation of the German Wikipedia article on Jean-Pol Martin, and here is a translation of the German wikipedia article on Learning by teaching. Being the topic of an article on German Wikipedia does not create automatic notability on English Wikipedia, but the number and quality of the references in both German-language articles strongly suggests that both English articles deal with a notable topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eastmain there are two articles nominated. Please !vote on both.

Also, the nomination for this page is TNT. If you want to keep it I suggest that you roll up your sleeves and start making this a WP article and not an extension of the LDL website. Even so, you may not succeed. It is not clear to me that there are sufficient independent, reliable sources, or that we will be able to keep this free of the promotion that this page has been subject to. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The 45 references in the German version of Learning by teaching are sufficient to establish notability, even if they haven't been added to the English article yet. And I think that Jean-Pol Martin has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but... Is it COPYVIO to post a straight translation of an entire one-hour (?) lesson, which is what this looks like? If it doesn't appear almost word-for-word in the cited source, I find it hard to believe that it could meet WP:V and not be original research, and if it counts as COPYVIO to present a direct translation of the full text of an entire lesson plan, then every version of the article between January 2007 and the future point that it gets removed will need to be rev-delled anyway.

Also noting that the OP is right about just about everything, I just don't necessarily think the page should be deleted. Articles written primarily by COI editors, whose off-wiki sites tell readers to consult Wikipedia for what essentially amount to first-hand, "official" information, don't have any place on Wikipedia.

And while I am not interested in casting a !vote at this point, I think User:Alexf (who opened the recent AN thread) might be, so pinging him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As mentioned, I did not come with intention to delete. I am not questioning the notability of either the article or the subject. I was concerned with the COI issue and asked for a review. -- Alexf^(talk) 10:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Jean-Pol Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He is a professor at a major German university, which makes him notable. Weak Delete for (German: Lernen durch Lehren). This has numerous GBooks entries which would suggest it is not in-bubble thinking, which weve seen before on Afd. It could be a copyvio but could also open sourced. It is a great looking article, written like manual or paper, professionally written. It would need to be rewritten, as it is instructional. It is not WP article. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so that it can be re-written from scratch. As it stands, the article is almost completely promotional in both tone and content, and simply scrubbing it would end up with something incomprehensible. An alternative is to strip it down to the bare bones and keep it, but with the COI SPA author topic banned from contributing to it, but I think deleting it to start over is a better option. The closer should please note the off-wiki canvassing by the author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but tone is not a correct reason to delete an article. Notability of a topic is a reason to delete an article. You've all seem to forgotten that given the recent deletion nominations I've seen in the past two years. editorEهեইдအ😎 11:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and delete the auto-bio article as well, as not passing WP:PROF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Jean-Pol Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Definitely is worthy of an Wikipedia article.Also why would you delete the article and start from scratch when you already have gotten a basis? Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NORESCUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: WP:NORESCUE makes sense only if the subject is not notable. --Cethegus (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the promotional quality of the article is such that there's no way to make a neutral article out of it, it should apply as well, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Der Spiegel has 840,000 people buying it weekly. Other sources covering this confirm notability. Dream Focus 03:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep the article for the notable guy who created this, he passing WP:NACADEMIC 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Dream Focus 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Have you found any independent reliable sources that demonstrate that the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline? Per this edit, I see Wikipedia articles making that claim, but based on what looks like questionable misrepresentation of sources, most of which are not independent anyway. I can state from experience that the approach does not have wide acceptance in Japan (a claim not directly made in our article, but very much implied) or Ireland (which one would imagine would be one of the first places to adopt a cutting-edge language-teaching technique developed within the EU, if it really were having as significant an impact as our articles imply). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How with India? Here MPhil/PhD (English) Entrance Test in University of Hyderabad 2017. Look at multiplechoice question 87 (link redacted).Jeanpol (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have for the third time now, redacted a WP:COPYLINK violation. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If he gets media coverage for his teaching method being used in multiple schools, then that proves its notable enough for him to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Dream Focus 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above "Delete" comments. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _{Very Busy} 16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jean-Pol Martin, per WP:PROF. Keep Learning by teaching as it thoroughly satisfies WP:GNG. EnPassant (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jean-Pol Martin as WP:PROF & "Redirect" Learning by teaching to Martin, as the method creator. "Learning by teaching" is way too promotional to consider keeping and Wikipedia does not need two closely related articles on this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as Learning by teaching meets GNG and Jean-Pol Martin passes criteria 1 of NPROF. I do definitively agree, however, that Learning by Teaching needs a radical overhaul. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Learning by teaching is kept I am committed to implementing, in short order, a major overhaul of the article which keeps as the basis for much of the existing text, as a note for the person who closes when weighing the delete because of TNT remarks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Split due to WP:UNDUE and other problems. The LdL part with all its issues should be split off to another article with an AfD and leave only a paragraph on LdL in this article. I think all, including Martin, pass GNG. StrayBolt (talk) 15:22, 30 May 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. The double-nomination confused matters, but there is a rough consensus to keep both articles. – Joe (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Shreve

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, local politician. Rusf10 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating, this one:

Problematic decision to combine deletion of two individual politicians, each with a with unique career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They hold the same damn position. And trust me your behavior is even more problematic.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They have had different lives, different careers, and have gotten different amounts of media coverage. Moreover, editors commenting below have written as though addressing the notability of a single individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual has received significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant: article has 54 citations, of which 51 are independent reliable sources. Ongoing: citations are from the last 12 years. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By my count 49 of those citations are from the same local newspaper. The Frederick News-Post is not a major publication. The other two come from the Washington Post. Neither article is about Shreve. The first one is about a vote on a Scientology rehab, it has exactly one quote from Shreve. The second one is about the same rehab center and says Shreve was the only member to vote in favor of the proposal.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please stop the genocide of local politican's entries. Subject passes WP:GNG. Ample, robust souring from national publications.22:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)(Comment unsigned byUser:Bangabandhu, please remember to sign your comments.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he is a member of a county council and the coverage just does not rise to the level to show that he is fully notable. Local coverage can be found on any politician, we need more than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billy Shreve [NOTE: the name "Billy Shreve" was later added to my opinion; initially it was just keep. See also my opinion of Bud Otis further below. gidonb (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)] as meeting the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:GNG?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably looking at the same articles, just draw different conclusions. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For my own edification, would you mind pointing out a couple articles you think pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer talk 02:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not view the Frederick News-Post an invalid source for notability, as some here do. The coverage of this politician in this daily newspaper is nothing short of impressive. There are other sources. For example, I just added an item from the Voice of America in which the first three paragraphs focus on Shreve. The entire article is focused on a project educating against drugs, in which Shreve was the driving force. gidonb (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Bud Otis, long and significant career, article is already pretty well sourced and my brief exploration of his career brought up lots more material in WP:RS that can be added to improve the article.(I added a little)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC) withdrawing, discussion is illegitimate because it conflates the careers of two separate individuals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nowhere in WP:RS does it say the sources have to be "major." I'd say 54 sources is more than enough to get it over WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC requires in-depth coverage though. The sources here are really poor because they are mostly about something other than the subject, but happen to have a breif mention or a few quotes from him.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion and several recent and present discussions persuades me, as it has persuaded several editors commenting above, that too many editors are applying WP:NPOL without taking a close look at individual careers and available sources. Except with new pages on candidates actively running for office, I recommend tagging pages and leaving the tag in place for a year before taking politicians to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree - this article is a clear example of a local politician who doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County council is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — it is a level of office where a person qualifies to have a Wikipedia article only if the sourcing expands far enough beyond the purely local to mark them out as a special case over and above most other county councillors. The sourcing in these articles is not doing that, however — they're referenced entirely to the purely local media coverage that is simply expected to exist for county councillors, and not to any strong evidence that either of them is more notable than everybody else who serves on a county government in the United States. There is no automatic entitlement for politicians at this level of government to have Wikipedia articles, so listing them for deletion does not represent "genocide". If "local media coverage exists and therefore WP:GNG is passed" is enough for these two county councillors, then every county councillor everywhere is equally notable by the same standard, because local media coverage always exists — but Wikipedia has an established consensus that purely local media coverage is not enough to get a county councillor into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the article doesn't demonstrate a credible reason why their notability extends beyond the purely local. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. This article is source-bombed, but I cannot access many of them because they are behind a password-protected site. What is important: even though there are 55 sources currently on the page, where are the ones that help him become notable? Commissioners debate time commitment? Shreve raises staffing, parking concerns? Population boom feeds construction? They're also all from the same newspaper. The sources that exist are almost all WP:MILL local political minutiae, and the ones I can access - the Washington Post ones - he's only mentioned once or twice. Keep in mind WP:NPOL states: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. There are at most two sources out of the 55 presented which could satisfy that requirement. SportingFlyer talk 05:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed multiple people were nominated in this AfD. I stand by my delete for Shreve and would also like to note Bud Otis, in spite of a number of sources on his page, also fails WP:GNG. None of the articles discuss him outside of his local government position and are all WP:MILL, and the best source is only an editorial. My analogy for these is similar to game coverage a really good high school basketball player: there will be lots of local coverage, and some of it may appear to pass WP:GNG, but neither of these gentlemen have done anything notable apart from serving on a local elections board, and the sourcing shows it. Due to the odd nature of this AfD (I thought it was just for Shreve) I have no problems with any sort of procedural keep, but I strongly believe neither of these articles are fit for Wikipedia based on the available sourcing, and are merely local political cruft. SportingFlyer talk 21:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer:Do not fall for E.M.Gregory's wikilawyers, the nomination complies with WP:MULTIAFD.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, I honestly thought this AfD was just for Shreve. SportingFlyer talk 21:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor' I urge that this discussion be aborted. Nom has brought two individual politicians to a single discussion, but editors, (except Bearcat and me,) are discussing it in the singular.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is able to read knows there are two articles and WP:MULTIAFD is allowed so stop acting like I'm breaking the rules or something, just to derail the discussion. And if they somehow didn't know, they certainly do now with you bludgeoning.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am familiar with the policy. It states: An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy. If you're unsure, don't bundle it. You and I have been involved in recent months in a large number of deletion discussions regarding county- state- and town-level politicians, and we both know that notability varies according to the vagaries of individual careers, even when, as you say above, "They hold the same damn position." E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why don't you explain to me how these two men have done anything of significantly different notability over their careers because I don't see it. The only elected position either held was on the same county council (or its predecessor) and I don't see anything even remotely notable about their lives before that. Your objection comes down to nothing more than WP:WIKILAWYERING--Rusf10 (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The material in Bud Otis#Professional career, like running a large publishing house. Many sources for those years/jobs can be found under Harold Otis. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I am seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG. --RAN (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another problem with this awkward double nomination is that lists relevant to Otis may not be relevant to Shreve.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do either of these have to do with Christianity? SportingFlyer talk 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spent a couple of decades working for a major Christian deniminaiton, off to Russia after glasnost as a missionary and opened churches. Stuff like that. It's er, on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he's a religious man. His positions were not notable. I question if Review and Herald Publishing Association should even exist, because at a quick glance, it does not meet WP:ORG. Adding this to the Christian del-sort is disingenuous.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article on my watchlist seems to be well-sourced, and it meets "importance" and GNG criteria. I am not checking the other one. Why are these bundled? Keep them both then. --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you just admitted that you didn't even look at the other one, then I guess your keep vote for the second article doesn't count then. How many other articles have you voted keep on without even looking at them?--Rusf10 (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I try to give attention appropriate to the quality of the deletion nomination. :) --Doncram (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, my mistake is giving too much attention to a low-quality vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Otis is certainly notable, while Shreve is arguably so but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The two should not be nominated on the same page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shreve who has done nothing notable apart from be a county politician (NN) and a politician's campaign manager (NN). Weak keep for Otis, who is NN as a politician, but might be notable as a publisher. The issue is not whether the info is verifiable, but whether the people are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out WP:NAC per WP:Deletion review/Log/2018 May 27
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for Bud Otis. I was surprised to learn after writing my opinion on Billy Shreve that this nomination also includes Bud Otis. I disagree that the nomination of Otis should piggyback on that of Shreve. These are different politicians with different considerations. A closing nominator has said this before me, however that closure was overruled in a deletion review and the AfD was reopened. I have not delved into every claim made in the review and accept that reviewer was entitled to make a decision. Now that s/he did, I'm adding my position on the linkage and the Bud Otis article here. I still want to encourage a separate discussion. The suggestion seems to be that this should be done on the same AfD page?! gidonb (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bud Otis. WP:HEYMANN Notability supported by being CEO of the Review and Herald Publishing Association and by his reliably sourced political career before he was elected county commissioner.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another self-proclaimed HEYMANN.Does anyone still take these seriously? President of a small publishing company is not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shreve. Page has INDEPTH coverage of his career, mostly locally sourced, but including New York Times. Plus Washingtonian (magazine) took a deep dive into his pro-development politics in a group with two other pro-development politicians who held a majority on the county council.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have coverage in the New York Times, he just has a couple quotes. The article is not about him. Neithier is the Washingtonian article, it just mentions him a few times.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to badger everyone who votes keep? Clearly he has a different conception of INDEPTH and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorofthewiki:- Completely uncalled for. You're accusing me of badgering people? Take a look at how many comments E.M. Gregory has above, starting with the comments he felt he needed to insert out of order at the top of the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, E.M. Gregory kinda is beating a dead horse with regards to the discussion being illegitimate. But you probably should have nominated Bud Otis seperately, since the notability of one may not mean the notability of the other. Just something to keep in mind going forward. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:15, 30 May 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. A Train^talk 07:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid)

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

One mention in a blog is not sufficient to make this subject Notable. I searched Google News but found no hits at all. A broader Google search found only blog posts. This falls a long way short of GNG. Gronk Oz (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substance to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional sources, for reference. It appears the monster was first described in this piece, which is not mentioned in the article. There is a reasonable passage in this book, and certainly some kind of mention in several other books as well. Obviously the article itself is quite poor generally, and would need to be completely rewritten. BubbleEngineer (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect to Living dinosaur, per BubbleEngineer's sources. A single sentence should cover it, in the "cryptozoology" section, and there's definitely not enough for a separate article. The Mighty Glen (talk) 09:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable folklore. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Living dinosaur per TMG and BubbleEngineer. Nanophosis (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is probably the first mention of the thing in writing, there's lots of material here to work with for a cryptid, though I do think it should be moved to Partridge Creek monster or Partridge Creek beast User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Living dinosaur. Plantdrew (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as merge to Living dinosaur, but subsequent discussion (reproduced below) indicates this is not a workable solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying here the discussion from my talk page subsequent to the first closure of this AfD, in the hope that it will help editors determine what to do with this article. Sandstein 18:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partridge Creek monster (Cryptid) as a merge to Living dinosaur. There is a problem in the fact that the article Living dinosaur was not notified of this at all. There is no chance it fits in the article as this is not what the Living dinosaur article is about. Yes there is a cryptozoology section, but it's not a list of cryptids, it's a generalization section. If it goes anywhere in wikipedia it's probably List of cryptids but that's a different merge request, and of course "List of cryptids" would have to be notified. As it stands now a merge to "Living dinosaur" is invalid and should say as much in the merge closing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen, Nanophosis, and Plantdrew:, you were in favor of merging, what is your view? Sandstein 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. My original idea was to add a short list of examples to the cryptozoology section of Living dinosaur, but after reading the current text on the page several times and thinking about it, I doubt it would be appropriate to create an "example" section just for one cryptid that doesn't even have a page anymore. After this consideration, I'd agree with Fyunck that the article should be either merged with List of cryptids with proper notification, or deleted entirely. Nanophosis (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes thanks for the ping. I'm persuaded by Fyunck and Nanophosis, but List of cryptids is nearly all a list of separate articles. Not sure what to do at this point: should we propose a merge, which would effectively be a re-run of the AFD discussion? The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would be an exact re-run. My guess is those that would tend to edit "Living dinosaur" would say a resounding "no" to the idea. The List of cryptids merge I'm not so sure about the outcome. Two other things that's a little strange with this. If it's a merge you usually merge the entire contents somewhere else, unless it's duplicate contents. Maybe you'd cut a little but mostly you merge it all. Redirecting and simply mentioning the name of the beast on another article is not a merge of content. Second, this beast was mentioned in an article of The Strand in France. I'm not convinced this was some made-up publicity stunt perpetrated by Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote often in the magazine, and whose book The Lost World came out a couple years later. But those are my musings. I don't really care if this stays as an article, is deleted, or gets merged, as long as it follows protocol and the mergeto article is notified of the discussion beforehand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks to the article and found a few references. I've updated The Strand Magagazine reference, but there are a few earlier references, and at least one later:

Dupoy, Georges (15 April 1908). "Le Monstre de 'Partridge Creek'" [The Monster of "Partridge Creek"]. Je sais tout (in French). Vol. 4, no. 39. Paris, France: Pierre Lafitte & Cie. pp. 403–409 – via Bibliothèque nationale de France.

Staff writer (10 May 1908). "Duke of Westminster to Hunt the Partridge Creek Monster". Third. The Times-Democrat. No. 18, 286. New Orleans, Louisiana. p. 3 – via Newspapers.com.

Staff writer (10 May 1908). "Gigantic Keratosaurus, Seventy Feet In Length, Found Alive in Alaskan Backwoods". The Baltimore Sun. Vol. 142, no. 176. Baltimore, Maryland. p. 13 – via Newspapers.com.

Heilig, Sterling (17 December 1922). "Prehistoric Monster Still Haunts Arctic". 8: Books and Magazine. New York Herald. Vol. 86, no. 109. New York, N.Y. pp. 5, 7 – via Newspapers.com.

Almost all of it seems to be based on Dupuy's story. While the Je sais tout version appears to have been published before The Strand version, the composite image in the French version is separated into two complete images in the English version.--tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note - By the way, the article this was potentially going to merged into is having an RfC on changes. Since it's related, See Talk:Living dinosaur if you wish to comment. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by -tronvillain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:08, 31 May 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. A Train^talk 07:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domenique Thornton

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

Non-notable mayor. I did find articles which mentioned her in my WP:BEFORE search (including a DUI arrest while she was mayor, though the charges were dropped), but nothing that gives her notability on top of being a small-town mayor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 17:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Every morning (there's a halo...) 18:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to delete as per nom. No notability in here. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL as is. Calm Omaha (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above, fails GNG ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de}L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article says nothing of substance about the individual. There are very few positions that grant notability merely for having them, and city mayors are clearly not such, especially in cities with less than 50,000 people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Middletown CT is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced anywhere near well enough to actually clear WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable mayor. It's good that you did a BEFORE search though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:34, 2 June 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. A Train^talk 07:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Nottingham

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

Fails WP:GRIDIRON; played at university (where there was only routine coverage) and has not played since (and fails WP:GNG for post-university coverage). I missed a 2012 PROD, and so because this isn't enough of an IAR situation we get to sit through a pointless AFD... Primefac (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. No notability. Cheers! Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to have notability for college play someone needs to be truly exception. Nottingham was a fully mediocre football player, although he may well have been a much better student than most college football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete modern-day Ivy league quarterbacks have a hard time generating enough press to truly pass WP:GNG or really any other standards for inclusion. I'm not able to find any reason to make an exception. However, there is NY Daily News article that leads me to question my position, but it is followed up by Columbia Spectator talking about how he has left the team. Could he be notable for being a washout? Possibly, as Bob Uecker comes to mind... but even he had obtained and established notability before really creating the "character" of the washed-out ball player.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 28 May 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. A Train^talk 07:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Lieske

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" consist of listings and brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. unless some editor can find good coverage. In this shape is not good enough. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not disputing that Lieske has been the artist for a whole lot of award winning notable games, but were any of them given for the artwork? are there any reviews that discuss specifically the artwork (not just a mention)?, a quick check suggests not, also, have been unable to find exhibitions of, and/or, collections that hold his work, so doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So should game artists like Franz Vohwinkel, Michael Menzel, Vincent Dutrait, and Miguel Coimbra also be deleted? There are only a few game artists worldwide with over 100 or 150 design credits. Sorry, but think your standards are far too strict as there are hardly any awards for game artists as compared to game designers. Role-playing game artists are allowed but board game artists are not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Role-playing_game_artists Durindaljb (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. I have not looked at the other articles, but each article needs to meet the criteria for inclusion. Having an abundance of design credits is not a criteria for inclusion. Inclusion is based on Wikipedia based notability not popularity or work output. reddogsix (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Having an abundance of design credits (attached to award-winning works) is not ... notability not popularity or work output." That's weird because it sounds like notability to me. >>> Should cinematographers and casting agents be excluded from wikipedia as they are not actors, writers, or directors? Durindaljb (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Once more we are talking about Wikipedia based and defined notability, not "real-life" notability. How is any of what you described supported by WP:N? I don't understand your comment about actors and writers and directors - indivivuals are included based adherence to WP:N, not because of their job or work. reddogsix (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just creating pages similar to other wikipedia pages of notability. For some strange reason no one seems to have requested deletion of these other pages which you state that you "have not looked at". Artists are part of the production for any award-winning game just as cinematographers and casting agents are part of any award-winning movie. Furthermore, you never explained why many role-playing game artists are allowed in wikipedia but most board game artists are not. Durindaljb (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You are not reading what I have written, no one has said role-playing game artists are not eligible to be included in Wikipedia. For the last time, this individual fails to meet the criteria in WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find in a fresh search were low-grade blog type listings, self published items and weak mentions in foreign press. I suspect the article has been puffed up for promotional purposes.104.163.139.33 (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a way to move this page to de.wikipedia.org before it gets erased? (As I said, this the same for format I have used for other pages.) Durindaljb (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia EN and Wikipedia DE are run independently. Re "same for format" comment, did you read the many links reddogsix provides above? It seems not.104.163.139.33 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 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. A Train^talk 07:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of wrestling tag teams and stables

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

Unsourced list with no requirements for inclusion. The purpose of the list can be fulfilled much better with categories. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced" does not mean unsourceable, which I don't think could be the case here if the entries are notable. And why would inclusion be more of a problem for this list than a category? It would be the same information either way. See also WP:NOTDUP, on the complementarity of categories and lists. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, the premise of this simply will not work. An article for all notable tag teams is impossible to research. There are notable tag teams that are missing from the list, and a lot that are entered and are not notible (such as Team BAD, or Slater & Rhyno). There is no way to source an article like this, that would be able to prove that the tag team in question is notable. So, a list would only make sense if it only included articles that were created, or obvious redlinks. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "There is no way to source an article like this, that would be able to prove that the tag team in question is notable." I don't understand this at all, are you saying you don't understand notability guidelines on Wikipedia, or are you confusing what we mean by "notability" with something else? If it has an article or merits one, then it belongs in a list. If it doesn't merit an article, remove it. That's an issue for ordinary editing to maintain, and a standard practice and inclusion criteria for lists of any kind. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This arbitrary list serves no purpose. In addition WP:LISTBIO is clearly being ignored in compiling this list. - Galatz ^Talk 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the teams from the first few sections that don't have articles on Wikipedia per the previous deletion discussion - a key factor in notability. No article = not notable and shouldn't be on the list. Discussion required for the rest as it looks like clutter even with my work done to establish a firmer notability guideline. 150.101.89.150 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RKM Legend

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sources are blogs, sing directories, and PR content pages, Google search comes up with 63 unique results. ... discospinster _talk 19:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage in multiple, third-party reliable sources. Most of the citations are to articles that are actually rehashes of press releases, directory listings, and similar material. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn and no other deletion arguments. czar 03:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Süreyyya Evren

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

This writer's biography lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) If there are further sources in the Turkish language, they're lost to me. There is no equivalent bio in the Turkish WP from which to take sources. czar 19:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. czar 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. unless someone adds some good sources. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@G.scaringi, added some sources. They don't address any of the article's formerly unsourced text, but there is some coverage of his books/novels. If you'll strike your !vote, we can speedy close this discussion. czar 02:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar done that. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GOLDENRULE. It has been featured on CNNTurk and a bunch of other websites that are all reliable sources. The only problem is, it's all in turkish, but still keep. Edidiong (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mredidiongekong, that's one interview and so far the only one. Where is the "bunch" and what are you using to search? czar 20:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I dunno if your search doesn't bring out much but i can see from here that the first 3 meets significant coverage reliable and independent sources. Check here here Edidiong (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mredidiongekong, ya my search was empty but I apparently need to experiment with other filters since his coverage is more as a novelist than as an anarchist/academic. I think most of those Google News hits are really subpar (interviews or low quality sources) but I found enough coverage on his books (especially the novel that released this month?) to build it out a little. Thanks! czar 21:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no !delete votes. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyogo Performing Arts Center

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

I am failing to find little beside maybe this in the way of nontrivial coverage, and that isn't much. Fails the general notability guideline. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am including Hyogo Performing Arts Center Orchestra here as well, because it is even less notable than its parent organization, but the result of this AfD affects its outcome. That is, if for some reason Hyogo Performing Arts Center is kept, the orchestra will be merged there rather than deleted. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know nothing of this center, but a search for "兵庫県立芸術文化センター", which seems to be the Japanese equivalent of the name, gives 1,280,000 hits, vastly more than the English version unsurprisingly. So it may well be that there are some in that enormous number that can establish notability; all we need is a Japanese speaker to verify that for us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then Keep per Japanese sources identified by User:Hijiri88. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even not counting the hundreds of news sources, the topic has its own entry in Digital Daijisen[6] and having a standalone entry in another encyclopedia is usually a pretty good indicator of notability. This is honestly the first truly lazy nomination I've seen since starting to monitor ARS in February, which is incredibly ironic as Andrew Davidson is not here crying BEFORE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hijiri88: Aye, I apologize. Before I withdraw this, can you comment on whether its orchestra (which I should not have bundled here for this reason) is also notable? I found one and one-half nontrivial sources discussing it, but you might be able to find others. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Compassionate727: While I enjoy classical music, I don't general write Wikipedia articles on the topic, let alone on modern orchestras, so I don't actually know what kind of sources one would normally use to establish notability, but I think being the sole representative of Hyogo Prefecture in the Association of Japanese Symphony Orchestras [ja] would be an achievement worhy of a standalone article. I personally would prefer that we didn't have standalone articles on subjects that do not (and probably never will) have their own articles in paper encyclopedias, but the community doesn't agree with me on this and I've made my peace with that. Anyway, a search for the name of the orchestra in quotes didn't show up much because a lot of articles about the orchestra, not the venue, refer to them as the resident orchestra in the Hyogo Performing Arts Center, but the Kobe Shimbun did a piece about their outreach mini-concerts in elementary schools and special needs schools (which seems vaguely encyclopedic but could not be included in the article on the Center because it specifically doesn't take place there),[7] the same paper printed an article commemorating the orchestra's 100th concert and their "world-class conductor" Yutaka (?) Sado, claiming that their concerts attract unusually large audiences (I've honestly not been to a classical concert in Japan where more than 50% of the seats, much less 80, were filled),[8] and the Nikkei Shimbun had a piece that (admittedly briefly) compared the performing culture of the orchestra to that of the Osaka Philharmonic.[9] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that your explanations of why the sources matter are erroneous (although you probably were just trying too hard). What noteworthy things the orchestra has done do not matter; that the orchestra is covered nontrivially does. As it is, we have sufficiently established that the orchestra is indeed notable. Thank you kindly for your help idenifying these sources, and I withdraw both nominations. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:53, 29 May 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. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fialkowski

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

Unsourced (but ineligible for BLPPROD due to external links). Deprodded in 2006. The external links are to subject's blog in Salon24, and videofact which does not seem like a RS (and doesn't provide much in terms of depth regardless). Nothing in the bio indicates notability - per our article (unconfirmed by sources) he was a solidarity activist in Poland (as were many), immigrated to the US at some point, and then was a member of Solidarity Electoral Committee in New York in 1989 and chairman of Chairman of the Lech Wałęsa Electoral Committee in New York City in 1990 - neither of which would come close to NPOL. BEFORE doesn't bring much up at all in terms of sources. There does seem to be a pastor in Illinois with the same name who is possibly more notable (but wouldn't pass GNG either). Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unsourced and it seems non notable to me. Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 28 May 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. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Young Tapz

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Being featured on a single that charted isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO#2. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as the article clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #1, #2 and #8. Harut111 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harut111: His claim to winning an award needs a source and I already explained why criteria #2 is inapplicable. I also doubt the reliability and independence of the two nontrivial sources we have furnished, Complex and Remix Magazine, because of their overtly promotional tone. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over the past few years there has only been a few mentions in mainstream media and apart from promo's nothing else of note. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough for WP:MUSICBIO at present NealeFamily (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Changed to Keep as the music award combined with media coverage brings Tapz up to WP:MUSICBIO standard NealeFamily (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention in a non-related publication would appear to fail SIGCOV and therefore GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone here at least read the 8th point of WP:MUSICBIO? The singer won a major award...why are you even continuing this discussion? Harut111 (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He did indeed win an award at the 2017 MTV Europe Music Awards, and here is confirmation from some New Zealand-focused sources: [10], [11], [12]. Here is also a fairly solid journalistic piece on him: [13]. A better way to conduct this debate would be to determine if "Best New Zealand Act" at a supposedly European awards ceremony qualifies as a "major" award. One problem is that some news sources on the ceremony do not list that particular award, such as: [14], [15]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we're on the subject, are the ETVs in the same teir as the awards given as examples for that criteria? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a sourced claim that he won an award and an amount of news coverage. Some of the cited sources ([16][17][18]) are blatantly promotional in at least some portions, are of dubious independence, and should probably be removed. But this and this are both okay, and there's some other usable stuff. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless DerbyCountyinNZ can defend his assertion that all but one of the sources are affiliated (which I honestly wouldn't doubt but hasn't yet been firmly established) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The NZ Herald is not a music-based publication, all the others (at the time I posted) are music-related and therefore not independent of the subject. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what independent means... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add a little to the above, an independent source should be outside the topic (Mr. Tapz) but does not have to be outside the subject (music). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG with substanial coverage in RS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:23, 3 June 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. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Ojovan

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

There's really no basis for having this article. Three of the "sources" are tabloid dreck of the worst sort, as the titles indicate:

The fourth "source" is in the same genre - for indications of what type of coverage kankan.md provides, this week's Anda Adam, ravishing cleavage at event and Feli Donose is pregnant should offer a clue. Anyway, the "source" is a PR piece about the subject's new show.

Finally, "source" number five tells us that the subject was once one of six pretty random people who put out a video promoting online safety. Well, appearing in some video clip is not really an indication of notability.

In conclusion, the subject is a fairly routine television presenter who has received scant coverage as such, and a few tabloid mentions about her wedding and children don't make up for that glaring deficiency. Therefore, delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been speedy delete, couldn't any sources both relibiable from GNEWS or otherwise. Edidiong (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 31 May 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. – Joe (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Q-tickets

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

Page has not been developed, and there is no evident notability in 2018. No pages in other wikis, and it seems an inconsequential organisation from english perspective — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as persuaded by keep voters. (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Highway

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

do we need a disambug page where 2 titles are self disambug and the Singapore version is slightly weaker than the other. do a check nothing links here . Quek157 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator – the two titles are not self-disambiguating ... both highways are called "West Coast Highway" and neither of them are the primary topic. Disambiguation pages aren't supposed to have any links to them in the main namespace. Graham87 14:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Do note that the redirect is being created due to moving the Perth one to the west coast highway , Perth. that user is now banned as a sock of a banned user and you turn this to disambug. so this may qualify as g5. why not move the Perth one back here and for Singapore one just a disambug text on the Perth article will do the issue. Do note that the west coast highway, in Singapore, is not an expressway but classified as a semi-expressway which in otherwords a trunk route only. There are traffic lights along the ways so is no different as per any other major roads. The name is a misnomer. Quek157 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ordinary and useful disambiguation page, no reason to delete. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graham87 JarrahTree 00:53, 28 May 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. Redirection is an editorial issue. Sandstein 07:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Brehm

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

No notability. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NMUSIC as I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the subject significantly and it does not meet the criteria listed at the music notability guideline. —Z0 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Monstercat as it was originally created as such according to the edit history. The artist in question has had more releases on the label than any other label she's released with. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:DCB9:4420:8CC7:ECAB (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why it should redirect to Monstercat which has nothing but a list entry about her. Those searching for Laura Brehm are unlikely to look for the label and certainly wouldn't expect to arrive there from the search page. —Z0 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:55, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bunko Kanazawa

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. Being "called 'one of the biggest AV idols' " by a nn website jmate.com is an insufficient claim of significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well known Japanese porn star (the only one I've ever heard of tbh). Dozens of references already in the article. Very odd nomination. Tigerboy1966 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only one you've heard of" isn't a valid reason for keeping, Again there being dozens of references also isn't a valid for keeping, Very odd !vote. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Famous for many years; no reason for this...Modernist (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ITSFAMOUS, one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as No evidence of notability, hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Why are we even discussing if this should be deleted? Bunko Kanazawa was famous in the 90s and early 2000s. Are there any East Asian contributors assessing this? Just because her achievements are relatively unknown in the West is surely not cause for deletion, especially if you base the requirements in the context of the Western pornographic industry, e.g. there is no "Pornographic Hall of Fame" in Japan. Madoka Ozawa is another star whose page should not have been deleted and should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.50.104 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited reasons for deletion is "no evidence of notability, hasn't won any notable/signifcant awards". However, in the List of Japanese adult video awards (1991–2008) article, it is clearly stated that "Although pornography in Japan has a long history and is a major business, until recently, the adult video industry did not develop a broad-based set of awards for sales or performance such as the AVN Awards in American pornography." This measure of notability is therefore unrealistic as AV actresses like Bunko Kanazawa and Madoka Ozawa could not have won any notable awards as such awards did not exist during their heyday in the mid-to-late 90s and early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.50.104 (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 05:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:54, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Games Fleadh

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

Subject is not notable. It has not received significant coverage. Google books turns up no results relating to the event (apart from a single mention where an author thanks the organisers). The only reliable source in the article is an Irish Times link, which is now dead. A Google news search turns up only a handful of local articles and blog posts which list winners rather than thoroughly covering the event/competition itself. This can be seen in the article itself, as the most well-sourced section is the winners list. However, most of these sources are merely press releases by the colleges who won - these are obviously biased sources and not acceptable.

The entire rest of the article is has only three sources. Two of these are the event's website, and one is the aforementioned Irish Times deadlink.

As it stands, this event has received no international coverage, coverage by only one national newspaper (once, six years ago), and some very limited local and blog coverage which merely lists winners. Actual details about the event, structure, organisation, etc. is nonexistent. This hardly qualifies it for an article.

At the moment, it reads more like a (poorly written) advertisement (e.g. "Another Highlight of Games Fleadh, is GamesPro. GamesPro, is a panel of games and software developers, and companies, highly respected in industry" and "Every year Games Fleadh is supported by (but not limited to): Microsoft,EA, Demonware"). Klock101 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article reads like a promotional piece for both itself and other companies. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that this is poorly written(By myself). Content can be edited to be made read less of an advertisement. Article has informational content for a national audience. (FYI, I no longer have connection with this event) - Lynch3001 (talk) 07:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you had a connection with the event is a clear conflict of interest. You should not have created this article in the first place, and should probably recuse yourself from this debate - you're almost certainly biased, and your edit history suggests that you're a single purpose account.

If this event was noteworthy, someone other than someone connected with it would have made the article for it. My deletion nomination has nothing to do with the poor writing, that was just an addendum; the fact remains that there has not been significant coverage for this event, therefore it is currently impossible for this article to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The "informational content for a national audience" should be on the event's website, not Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a directory or a means of promotion. Klock101 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I did some major cleanup on the article, merging a bunch of unneeded sections together and fixing some of the POV content. It still needs work, but I think there is just barely enough sourcing available to meet the notability guidelines. ZettaComposer (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Unfortunately, I still disagree about there being enough sources to meet notability guidelines for an article. For example, the entire History section (which is the only particularly encyclopedic section of the article) has no sources whatsoever. The rest of the article is just a series of bulleted lists listing themes/winners, and again, are all sparsely referenced. The quality of some sources is still questionable (e.g. [5], [6], [7], and [9] were either published by the event itself or are self-promotional fluff pieces written by the winning colleges). An alternative to deletion may instead be a redirect to Limerick Institute of Technology, where a short section about the event could be included using the small handful of reliable sources that do exist. Klock101 (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kostas20142 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Christopher George

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

So, I tried hard to find some decent sources since I'd expect someone who played in two pro footy leagues for 8 years to have at least a mention in relation to the team, but alas, all I can find are primary sources, mostly in rag-mags, his own blog/tumblr, interviews. I can't find truly independent coverage of him as a business person/writer or as an athlete. Most of the article appears to be quite exaggerated as well. If he was indeed on any of these pro-teams, he certainly never played so far as I can tell, nor has his other work received in-depth coverage. In fact, the best piece I can find is a BBC article about him being cleared of a rape charge but it does give some helpful information, specifically that he was a reserve player and on trial at several clubs CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nobody called Kevin George has ever played in the Premier League or English Football League, so if he was genuinely on the books of the clubs mentioned then he never made it as far as the actual team.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no caps at professional level, and no documentation to justify importance of post footballing career.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this undisclosed native advertising. MER-C 15:35, 2 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Bohannan-Sheppard

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Sheppard was only mayor of a city with a population of 33,972 (fairly small), and served with little note. Though she did hire a convicted murderer, and the Baltimore Sun noticed, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and the NYTimes article is not sufficient coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While the population of Chester is relatively small now, it is the largest city in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, was the first city founded in PA and was much larger with 66,000 residents as recently as 1950. The election of Bohannan-Sheppard was a major change giving Democrats control of city government for the first time in 125 years due to residents' frustration with major corruption in the city including the previous mayor John H. Nacrelli. She is the second female, African-American mayor of Chester behind Willie Mae James Leake. On top of mention of her election in major papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times and Baltimore Sun, Bohannan-Sheppard is mentioned in the book "The Ecological Community" by Roger Gottlieb and "Finding God in the Singing River: Christianity, Spirit, Nature" by Mark Wallace. To say that she served with little note ignores the grass roots environmental task force she led opposing the placement of sewage treatment plants, medical waste facilities, recycling centers and trash incinerators in the city of Chester highlighted in the 1998 California Review Article by Sheila Foster titled - "Barbara%20Bohannan-Sheppard" Justice from the Ground Up: Distributive Inequities, Grassroots Resistance, and the Transformative Politics of the Environmental Justice Movement. To quote WP:PERSON, "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "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." I believe this article meets that requirement. Dwkaminski (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my before search brought up very little about her, and the articles on the page don't appear to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 16:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. She is notable for hiring the convicted felon. The fact that this happened in Chester does not surprise me. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Lotss of significant and historic coverage. Being mayor of a smaller coty does not preclude someone from being notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hiring of the convicted killer might be worth mentioning on the history section of our article on Chester, Pennsylvania, but it does not justify having a stand alone article. All the more so because the subject is more than likely still alive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable per previous "delete" !votes. Making blue link of mayors of towns or even cities or city council members is certainly not a reason for creating these stand-alone pseudo biography articles. Otr500 (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article and nomination appear to suffer from lack of access to news archives; she was Mayor thirty years ago. WP:HEY, I did a very minor expand/source. More INDEPTH coverage exists from which article can be further improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple, reliable, independent sources including Baltimore Sun, Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and books and legal reviews Dwkaminski (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the gonzo academic sourcing brought by User:Dwkaminski there is: The Failure of Environmental Regulation: What Is a Poor Person to Do - Are the Civil Rights of Community Residents at Odds with Environmental Concerns - Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and Thermal Pure Systems, Inc., 1993 W.L. 456285; Czmus, Akim F.. INDEPTH on Bohannan-Sheppard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per E.M.Gregory--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:33, 31 May 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. A Train^talk 07:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Vote

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

Like the article on his wife, this article suffers from promotional language and lack of available secondary sources that help determine GNG. Almost seems CSD worthy but I was being careful by just opening a deletion discussion. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched both Victor Vote and his real name, but the returned results were all Wikipedia mirrors. I went through the article, and the only thing worthy of note is the statement that he is Director of Media and Publicity to a state legislator, although unsourced, but even if it was sourced it wouldn't still be sufficient to meeting WP:NPOLITICIAN, as that is not an electable position. Article is also filled with unnecessary external links, and probable WP:COI. I agree that CSD should be warranted, but it is good that this goes through AFD so that the author will understand why his article was deleted and not recreate it. You will be surprised that a number of people are innocently misinformed that anything goes on Wikipedia. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent PROMO, I looked but found nothing that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant spam. Bearian (talk) 00:53, 3 June 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 Eastern Metropolitan Bypass. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby crossing

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

The references do not verify anything in the article, and there is an outstanding article for improvement since July 2015. There has been enough time to try and improve it, and nothing has been done. Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A WP:BEFORE check does come out with a couple of paragraphs on it, e.g. E.M. Bypass (as well as hundreds of clear mentions), but I don't think sufficient for a full article notability. I would suggest a merge with E.M. Bypass , which (though it isn't currently mentioned) I believe it is part of. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Indonesia

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

As per WP:NOTE - as there is no same-sex marriage in Indonesia, nobody is writing about it, except to say it shouldn't be introduced. Is there an article about synagogues in Saudi Arabia or amusement parks on the Moon? Davidelit (Talk) 04:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently oppose - Please visit Category:Recognition of same-sex relationships by country to see that there are tons of articles about the status of same-sex relationships in countries where they are not even recognized (including Indonesia's own neighbor, Singapore, where there are virtually no LGB rights and sodomy is still a de jure crime). You might want to propose deletion for all of them too. You are also putting absurd and false analogies, because this article is concerned with actual legal issues that are being discussed by lawyers, including the question of how Indonesian law addresses its own citizens who have performed same-sex marriage abroad and how the government would treat foreign same-sex couples who are coming to Indonesia. Mimihitam (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if people are writing about to say it should't be introduced, then they are writing about it. Am I missing something here? - Egaoblai

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Egaoblai and Mimihitam's arguments. @Davidelit: there is a History of the Jews in Saudi Arabia which has a section on the modern era. Amusement parks on the moon is particularly glib, given the topic at hand. --Theredproject (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as re-written and re-named. Having been to Indonesia and Malaysia, I saw first-hand there are gay undergrounds in both countries ("comfort stations" appear to be especially cruisy). It feels like America c. 1982, in the sense that clandestine MSM meeting sites and prostitution are (ahem) active, the media and relgious authorities routinely lambast gay sex, and HIV is a real public health issue. I was ill with "Bali belly" when there, and on a tour with straight people, so I didn't walk too closely to my Filipino partner. Every religious, class, ethnic, and sexual issue there is politicized. Recognition is widespread that same-sex relationships exist, even if gay sex is illegal de jure, discrimination is widespread, and same-sex marriage will not soon be legalized. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 3 June 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. A Train^talk 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hailey Wait

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

Fails GNG - lacks RS coverage. It's a one-time event as a teenager with acne, and getting attention with Instagram selfies, but not seeing anything about her art, or music. Not lasting encyclopedic value. Maybe someday she will but not now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are about the same one-time event, and were all published between Dec 11 2017 and January 4 2018.104.163.139.33 (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a total lack of the type of reliable source coverage we need to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A brief flurry of coverage, generated by hacks picking up on an initial human interest story. Nothing solid enough to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the individual seems to have no real relevancy outside of showing off her acne to a relatively modest amount of followers and taking part to an event. The two lines about her music are blatant gossip and self-promotion. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:50, 30 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reusable Industrial Packaging Association

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

Non-notable organization lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References lack independence or are brief mentions. reddogsix (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:03, 27 May 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. Alexf^(talk) 10:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Vote

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

Google search reveals that she exists and uses social media, which does not establish biographical notability or general notability. Notability is not inherited, but the article is largely about her family, some of whom are notable. This article contains peacock language. Taking it out wouldn't leave much. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing close to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD worthy. A7 and G11 at least Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 27 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strength level

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, therefore this article is unencyclopedic as it only provides a dictionary definition of this crufty concept. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No references whatsoever. Fails WP:CBALL. 344917661X (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If this term is used in an article, its meaning will be clear through context. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in RS. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this idea is not notable. However, the term is used in chemistry for a different concept. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 3 June 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.