Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 October	21 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The "keep" side offers no reliable sources about this newspaper. Sandstein 14:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veekshanam

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, only source is an official government registration page. Waggie (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a circulation of over a million per Mass Media in India and Social impact of mass media in Kerala. Andrew D. (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the circulation of a paper confers notability per GNG or NCORP. Could you link to these references? Perhaps there is comprehensive coverage available there that could be useful? Waggie (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use Google Books as well or just stick the book names in the general search box? This is the most lazy approach to referencing I have ever seen! gidonb (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. From my search Veekshanam easily meets WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG per WP:RS and WP:NEXIST. Also, nom's focus on WP:NCORP (here and elsewhere) in the intro and subsequent comment is misleading as the newspaper is published by a political party. Corporations publishing just one newspaper may carry the same name but are almost never notable corporations. Large newspapers typically are. This one is no rare exception. Nomination is a clear waste of community time and should be closed as snow keep. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Á*Delete and Redirect to Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee - Mouthpieces of political parties, esp. those with a post-independence establishment are hardly any notable in Indian scape, as to their lack of good unbiased journalism. A few trivial hits, that vouches for the existence of paper and is used to source Congres's views on any particular issue are located.None covers it any significantly .Furthermore, GidonB needs to read WP:AADD (and that he needs to provide those sources, rather than handwave) and Davidson needs to gauge that GNG does not equate to trivial directory listings/name mentions across RS(s). ∯WBG^converse 10:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per WBG. Deb (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Winged Blades of Godric. WP:NCORP is a valid N criteria as it applies similarly to WP:NORG. Being published by a political party (or mouthpiece as WBG put it) is utterly meaningless in terms of notability. If the DNC or RNC published x paper, it doesn't make it notable just because it came from a notable political party. I'd also advise the editor who said that Waggie's approach to sourcing was "lazy" to read WP:ONUS. And in the immortal words of 12 year old 4channers everywhere "pics or it didn't happen" (or in this case, "sources or it's unsupported"). Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amnesty International#2010s. Sandstein 14:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty the game

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

Can't find any evidence that this meets the GNG criteria. While it might be a good cause it is a Facebook game created by volunteers that hasn't done anything to attract a huge amount of third-party coverage. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look notable. The refspam notwithstanding, the only interesting source I can see out and about it the AOL link already cited. I'm inclined to a delete. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amnesty International or like something like Amnesty International#2010s. I don’t see independent notability, but it’s creator clearly is, and its a viable search term, and it’d be easy to add a brief mention there. Sergecross73 msg me 22:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Sergecross73. Not finding much of anything in the way of sources outside of mentions in lists of "games with a cause." It's worth a mention in the main article simply due to the notability of its creator, though. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StagTV

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

Not a notable student TV station. I had made a redirect, which was challenged--but article improvement, such as it was, gives me no reason to think this is notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The student tv station in the UK with the most subscribers, with 4 technical awards from the national body, and that has featured in mainstream national newspapers, isn’t notable? If we were to go with your ridiculous opinion, we wouldn’t have any articles on student TV stations at all, because your notability requirements are too high for any of them to reach. Tropzax (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much in the way of coverage at all. Nothing in Gbooks or news either. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why Drmies has a hatred for this page - the article for the American student TV station StagsTV has zero citations and lots of useless parts, but that’s not been nominated for deletion. Tropzax (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, its unlikely that Drmies has a hatred. Don't take it personally. As the article stands at the moment, it appears the channel received some passing attention by the Daily Mail and Express. At the moment, most sources are the station website, if you can show further coverage in the media that would be a good start. --Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if CAPTAIN RAJU or Tropzax think that this station is notable, then please show some real sources. Both the daily mail and express sources talk about the station in passing and the real subject is the YouTube video (and while both sources are used, they are for the same exact story). And regarding the 4 technical awards from the national body - that organization has 40-something stations. Winning an award from something like that is very non-notable. --Gonnym (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the refs don't sufficiently indicate notability. Szzuk (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Drexel Dragons. Tone 22:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mario the Magnificent

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

University mascot that does not seem to meet WP:GNG; only source provided is from the university's website. Reads like a section of the team's fan guide. A quick Google search doesn't seem to establish notability either. only (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drexel Dragons. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it isn't notable. Szzuk (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be a rough consensus that the subject fails SIGCOV and ORGDEPTH. While the subject has been mentioned frequently none of the pro-keep comments offered evidence showing significant in depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Rifle Association

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Promotional. Kleuske (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there appear to be a few news articles that mention this organization as involved in some events, there's no sources I could find that actually discuss this organization in depth and in detail. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I have never heard of it before, it's a well referenced article and Google search shows 1,160,000 results.--RAF910 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs." from WP:ORGDEPTH, also, a lot of those hits go to pages discussing/mentioning the NRA and the word "socialist". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides local coverage (here and here), the organization was dragged (though slightly) into the Charlottesville racial incident. After it, the organization has been mentioned in The Guardian and in a recent academic book. That should be notability enough (WP:N). Rosario (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian says, Other groups who signed the decree include Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia, Virginia Minutemen Militia, American Freedom Keepers, American Warrior Revolution, Redneck Revolt, Vanguard America, Socialist Rifle Association and the Traditionalist Worker party. The Summer of Hate book similarly says, And there were many militias and paramilitary groups present in Charlottesville on August 12 - including the Socialist Rifle Association, the Virginia Minutemen Militia, the American Freedom Keepers, the Three Percenters, the American Warrior Revolution, and the left-leaning Redneck Revolt. These are what we call trivial mentions, and don't contribute to WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:N AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn’t show any volume on Google Trends (use quotes to evaluate the phrase). References are just passing mentions. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New organization, founded in 2018. Consequently, there is bupkis out there for reliable sources. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because this organization lacks enough WP:SIGCOV demonstrating it is a notable organization. A great many sources in the article are links to their own website or to Twitter, neither of which do anything to prove notability. The article also seems highly promotional and given that a significant amount of material in the article is material taken directly from the organization itself, it seems this article is serving little more then as free webhosting. I also disagree that Google search hits do anything to prove notability given the very easy confluence between this organization and with socialist and the National Rifle Association. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NORG. Most of the sources are total garbage; their own website, twitter, youtube, etc. I spot-checked a few that looked promising. MintPress News has a passing mention. Free Press Houston is another passing mention. A splinter group which has existed for seven months; it would be extraordinary for them to have gotten enough coverage to pass WP:NORG, and the dearth of WP:RS backs that up. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nizamani

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD was close as no consensus due to low participation (one for, one against). The two sources mentioned in that discussion are not reliable and were not reliable, per consensus, even at the time it took place. Sitush (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my remark about the sources found last time. The consensus has long been that sources from the British Raj era and earlier are not reliable. There are a multitude of reasons for this, only a few of which have been summarised at an essay that is in (very slow) development - see User:Sitush/CasteSources. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD received very little participation, and we might disagree with the outcome, but that outcome was "keep", not "no consensus". Now to the point, the notability of ethnic groups isn't my area, so all I can say is there are quite a few hits on google books, and one of the first results [1] suggests the Nizamani were among the most important (Baloch?) tribes (see p. 71: though from the snippet I can't see the background against which this importance is asserted). – Uanfala (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have participated at enough AfDs, including caste-based ones, to know that an AfD that has no consensus means that the article is kept but doesn't mean the consensus was "keep". You have also been around long enough to know that snippet views will not do, and this article itself has been around for years with no-one getting very far sorting it out. It can always be recreated but, sorry, I am fed up of seeing people produce tentative sources at AfD and then walk away, leaving the articles in the same poor state that they always were. The thing can always be recreated if there is any veracity to the claims of notability but while you're speculating about it, notability doesn't exist - you have to demonstrate it. I've done several BEFORE's, not one, and I have checked in a couple of libraries without making any progress in all these years myself. I'm not perfect, of course, but you're going to have to do better than "quite a few hits on Google Books", especially since GBooks doesn't even present the same view worldwide. Help me out, please, with sources but don't speculate. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can try WP:RX if you want, eg: see my recent request there. But note that we need multiple independent reliable sources, so perhaps list a few of the others you have spotted here and I will try to do the leg-work if you would prefer and if GBooks let's me see the stuff. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you have participated at enough AfDs to be expected to know that "keep" is a different outcome from "no consensus" (and here's a pointer to WP:CLOSEAFD for those who might not be aware). Of course, you could argue that the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus", but the fact is that it wasn't. And the article isn't in a "poor state", it's a one-sentence stub making an undisputed statement. Yes, it would be nice if the article were longer, but its length is not grounds for deletion. And neither is the claim for the presumed absence of sources, given the ease with which a quality one was found online. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the close. It was a non-admin close and they made a mistake. It actually does say "no consensus". And where have I said there are no sources at all? You're making things up again, and you're not progressing things by providing some information that might help me or someone else to sort out this problem. Nor have I suggested that length is a reason to delete or that I have "presumed" sources are absent. You're throwing mud now.

Why does it sometimes seem like I am expected to do everything round here regarding caste/tribe stuff but drive-by inclusionists etc can get away with off-whack commentary and half-baked links? - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is this news story, which appears to have been syndicated, and they are mentioned on p 4 of this ... but I don't think anyone would deny that they exist. What we need is sources that discuss them in some sort of depth. - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This present article is completely unsourced. Beside that is the article a magnet for unsourced own research. The Banner talk 18:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a bit to the article. One of the sources (Khuhro, the same one mentioned above) suggests the Nizamani were among the most important tribes of Sindh (at least in the 19th century). Additionally, I've found one more source, which makes a similar claim,^[1] and there are mentions of them as participants in the 18th century war between the Rajput/s of Jodhpur and the Khanate of Kalat (ibid. pp. 135–36), and in the context of Napier's conquest. Is this coverage in-depth? No it's not. But this is only stuff I've found in a five-minute browse through the two shelves of Sindh-related books in one local library. And it's worth bearing in mind that any in-depth literature on this topic is overwhelmingly more likely to consist in either Urdu-language monographs (pretty much off limits to those of us who have so far participated in this AfD), or in papers published in the journals of the local universities (not indexed anywhere, and so equally beyond reach for now). With the sources, we're really only scratching the surface, and if what we find is repeated statements about the tribe being among the major ones in the province, then in my opinion that's enough to satisfy notability. – Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Baluch, Muhammad Sardar Khan (1958). History of Baluch race and Baluchistan. Quetta. p. 244.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

I have deleted one of your new refs because we do not use censuses from the Raj era. All you have provided in the article is primary sources and passing mentions. The source you mention here doesn't look to be much better and is not independent. Please read WP:GNG and note that deletion does not preclude recreation if you do actually find decent mentions in future. If we based notability on speculation as to what may exist, we may as well bin the guideline. - Sitush (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted your deletion: the source you removed was this:Billimoria, N.M. (1943). "Census reports of Sindh for the years 1931 and 1941: a comparison". Journal of the Sind Historical Society. 6.4.. Reprinted in: Discovering Sindh's past: selections from the Journal of the Sind Historical Society. Michel Boivin, Matthew A. Cook, Julien Levesque (eds.). Karachi: Oxford University Press. 2017. ISBN 978-0-19-940780-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link) This is obiously not a census report. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? Those censuses are not reliable, so it doesn't really matter whether an academic paper is comparing them or not. Is it even anything more than a passing mention anyway? You are well aware the Raj era sources are not reliable, and 1943 is in the Raj era. - Sitush (talk) 22:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Raj-era source are all too often unreliable, but a paper doesn't automatically become rubbish just because it came out before 1947. And if the paper in question has recently been included in an anthology published by the OUP, then you'd need very good reasons for treating it as unreliable. As for the GNG: the whole idea of it is based on the possibility in principle to have decent access to the relevant sources. In the absence of this, then all we have is speculation, and your implied claim about the lack of sources is just as much speculation as my statement that enough sources should exist. At least I'm basing my speculation on what's there in the sources that we do have access to. Besides, GNG is not the one-size-fits-all solution: as well know, there are many subject-specific notability guidelines that override it, and they do so based on considerations like this. If an artist that has received a major award is presumed notable irrespective of coverage, then a major tribe of a major Pakistani province can be presumed notable as well. – Uanfala (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does automatically become rubbish. That is the consensus and it has been the consensus for years. An anthology is a collection of stuff, not a validation of it. As for the rest of your comment, you are delving into the usually wikilawyering that you do when you are back into a corner. It needs to stop. If you want to propose a SNG for castes/tribes then feel free but until then it is what it is. And I am not speculating that there are no sources: the burden is on the creator etc to provide sources that meet the standard and not only have they not done that but no-one else has managed it in all these years, including myself and you. Sources may well exist but we cannot find them and we should not keep stuff forever on the off-chance that something might turn up because, as I said earlier, if we adopt that approach then there is no point in having GNG anyway. - Sitush (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you misunderstand SNGs anyway. They are not instead of GNG but as well as, Their purpose is not to allow stuff to get in that would fail GNG but rather to keep stuff out that would pass GNG but which, nonetheless, the community has decided is of insufficient notability. - Sitush (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: [i]t meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. And this is repeated in pretty much every SNG that I've so far worked with. – Uanfala (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant anyway, isn't it, because there is no SNG for the subject? This is the problem when you start wikilawyering - things go off track very quickly. It's a good tactic to obfuscate when on the back foot. It makes no difference to my point about the sourcing etc, and there are a lot of long-term people who think as I do about the role of SNGs. Why not address the issues that matter instead of going down a rabbit-hole of what-ifs etc? - Sitush (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG because this tribe lacks WP:SIGCOV demonstrating it is a notable group of people. The sources are all very brief WP:ROUTINE mentions in government reports or other sources. As stated above, some of the sources are apparently of dubious value as well. There just isn't enough here in any respect for an article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Newshunter12. Regarding the previous close, the outcome was clearly no consensus despite the bolded text. The NAC confused the outcome for the article (kept) with the outcome of the discussion (no consensus). Mackensen (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hash BioTech Labs

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

Four years after the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikrant Sandal, I am still not seeing much about this company using Google. It looked like an attempt at using Wikipedia for PR way back then and, although the article really hasn't changed much since, it still doesn't seem to be actually notable. Sitush (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article can always be restarted fresh when, or if, the company gets more notability via the proper sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability that meet the criteria, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because of lack of reliable sources to prove the notability, as even after years of the companies establishment the sources to prove its authenticity and popularity is very less.Vinodbasker (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, seems to be an attempt at promotion GirthSummit _(blether) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find any signs to pass notability as of now. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see the 2013 Indian Express article describing their farm as sufficient to demonstrate attained WP:NCORP notability, and searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing the nomination. Bare notability is still notability in the end. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We Mean Business

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

Not a notable show per WP:GNG. It needs multiple significant secondary sources and the references presented (except the AdAge one I just added) do not really establish notability. All of the searches online come up for a totally different subject with the same name. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "...the program was sponsored by Dell". This was a nice try at making an article out of an infomercial, but we don't do articles about individual infomercials here. Not even notable enough as a footnote in Mr. Rancic's article. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling it an infomercial may be glibly satisfying, but lest we mislead anyone, the tone and style was that of a typical reality program, not the typical infomercial. Powers ^T 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment At the very least it's an advertorial for sure; cable seemed to be filled with them in that part of the decade (it's gone considerably down with only the much more neutral Your Business surviving most of the glut). Nate • (chatter) 09:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bare notability is still notability. Here is a critique of the show. This press release serves a reliable source, albeit first-party. The NY Daily News ran an article focusing on Rancic, coinciding with the premiere. Also, while the show may not be a major factor on Mr. Rancic's resume, it did help launch Katie Linendoll's career. Powers ^T 21:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources demonstrating notability, with two notable stars, on a major network. Just because the program is sponsored content does not lessen its notability. Many programs are considered sponsored content these days. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source Powers mentioned is a blog which itself is not really a secondary source needed, and Futon Critic is a primary source. But the NY Daily news one is pretty valid, so that along with AdAge coverage could put it past the WP:GNG, although by bare notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Terra Italia. Tone 22:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Pavan

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 10:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Terra Italia, where the subject is mentioned as the 2018 winner of the pageant; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. Only passing mentions and routine coverage of the one event. wumbolo ^^^ 21:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per North America. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Lesser

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

One spammy interview indicating that Lesser has a PR person is the "best" coverage there; no other independent coverage beyond a mention; fails WP:GNG Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More references to trusted sources are coming; some material was deleted without leaving a history trail which makes improvement more difficult

Material has been added and marked as quoted as needed, including references to publications by Forbes, Fast Company, NYT - please review and let me know of any changes you would suggest to improve the entry. Thx Florian Brody (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Company and NYT are mere mentions, significant coverage is required - see WP:SIGCOV. Forbes reference is unreliable, as it is from a contributor - see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Forbes.com_contributors Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, Fbrody has said they have a personal relationship with Marc Lesser Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, personal relationship or not, subject is notable, considering the coverage in news sources, including New York Times and Forbes. Now that Tan has stepped down, Lesser is one of the remaining main leaders.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how the coverage is significant per WP:GNG? Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is more than just mention here, here, here, here and here. Criterion is met: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fast company source is the best of the lot, but still doesn't offer significant independant coverage, with the material almost entirely being a quote from him or a paraphrased quote from him. The remaining sources offer a sentence of coverage, largely of quote (hardly significant coverage) or are unreliable forbes contributor Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reaching. There is more than what I have posted here, and the general overview is that the subject is notable enough for an article. Whenever the obviously notable Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute is mentioned, Lesser is mentioned as well. I wonder where you are basing the conclusion on that a paraphrased opinion in a news article is not independent coverage.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge/redirect to Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute. Independant is, by definition, means not produced by the subject of the article. Paraphrased opinion is produced, essentially, by the subject; that a journalist paraphrased it doesn't make it from someone else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main thing is - his opinions aren't coverage about him Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument rests on a misunderstanding of independent. WP:N states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.. Whether a person is just mentioned, paraphrased or quoted, is not related to this criterion, except the other way around: a person paraphrased or quoted is more likely to be notable than if just mentioned in passing. The source should have independent interests, whether the source quotes is irrelevant. If being quoted makes a subject less notable, than the American president would not be notable, because he is quoted all the time. I stick with keep, don't merge.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He seems to be successful, but that's not a notability criterion. He can't inherit notability from his various teachers and I don't see significant independent coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to support the claim that he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs in the article aren't independent of the subject nor do they sufficiently indicate notability, the refs noted in this afd are about the mooted merge target which will likely get deleted too. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth 2017. Most votes are either for delete or redirect. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP, the best option is to redirect. (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramina Ashfaque

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of a well known beauty pageant should meet WP:N. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2017, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New reliable sources have been proving its notability and she is prominent among Pakistani beauty queens.--Sonivaray (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No established notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per North America. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E because the WP:ROUTINE coverage of her does not constitute WP:SIGCOV demonstrating notability, and the subject only garnered some minor fame for essentially one event: a brief stint as a beauty queen. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per NA1000, a plausible search term but not independently notable. Szzuk (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth Spain. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Jane

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Spain, where the subject is mentioned as the winner of the competition; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per North America. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World Amateur Body Building Association

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

I can't see how this meets our new and improved notability requirements for organisations. The article is sourced only to the website of the organisation. It gets a number of passing mentions on GNews and a few on GBooks, but I don't see any of the sort of in-depth coverage that would justify an article – or, indeed, enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criteria for WP:NCORP are strict and specific: a subject must require in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources, which are clearly independent of the subject. I don't think that this article meets those criteria, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything that would make it meet them.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raja salesh mandir

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources. Also I have seen this was deprodded for no reasons noted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can’t find any sources other than phone directories, I agree that it seems to fail WP:GNG. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Looking closer at this, the two main creators are Mansurchak (talk · contribs) and Raja salesh mandir agapur (talk · contribs), both of whom were created around the same time and are only editing the same few pages (two of which share names with the two accounts) interchangeably. Given this evidence (and the clear COI/SPA purpose their usernames and actions indicate), I've filed an SPI. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG because it lacks even the WP:ROUTINE coverage to create an article about the topic, let alone have enough WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. I am also troubled by the naked COI editing described above, which adds to the need to remove this article, since such conduct shouldn't be rewarded. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Earth 2016. Michig (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Budinsky

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

WP:BLP1E ^{[Username Needed]} 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth 2016, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per North America. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Deb (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgain

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

fails WP:GNG Darsana.vinod (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems legit. but needs re-write, expansion, sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwill Entertainments

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

Article fails to properly establish notability. Notability is not inherited, so article creator needed to establish that WP:NCORP was met, which is basically just the same requirement as WP:GNG. I don't see significant coverage about this production company. Most of the Google News hits are passing mentions in the vein of "this film was released under the banner of Goodwill Entertainments" and similar. [2][3][4]. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, notability isn't inherited and none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McCrudden

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. The Irish leagues are not fully professional, nor are youth caps counted as notable. No signs to suggest extraordinary achievement in Irish soccer to pass WP:GNG. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and move Michael McCrudden (YouTube) to this title. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY because of lack of reliable independent content to prove his contributions in the field of football and his remarkable achievements such as receiving an award.Vinodbasker (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication player passes GNG or NFooty. Govvy (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M.Manimaran

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

Non-notable unelected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being "district secretary" for a local chapter of a political party is not a political office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but this is not sourced even remotely well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For The Likes Of You

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

Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article has many sources but none are good for gng. Albums are self released. No sign of charting, gold or major awards. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did find this, but the band don't appear to come close to satisfying WP:NBAND. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Punktastic and Heavy Magazine are reliable sources that count for WP:GNG, and there are a number of other magazine sources already in the article as well as others, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, which calls for significant coverage in reliable sources. Punktastic and Heavy Magazine may be reliable sources, but they haven't given this band significant coverage - all they've done is stick the band's press release in their news feeds. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McAbee

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

Appears to be a non-notable business person. Account content has almost entirely been contributed by two banned accounts. This looks like a violation of WP:N and possibly WP:COI. Prior deletion discussion is called into question by the heavy participation of these banned accounts, User:Ecoleetage and User:NYScholar, which were involved in sockpuppetry. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find any suitable sources on Gnews, and only passing mention/quote on Bing. To be fair, User:NYScholar was community banned for other reasons and was not necessarily a part of the User:Ecoleetage sockpuppetry - though it is interesting that the entry for Farm Credit of New Mexico was created by Eco during the course of the original McAbbee AfD, seemingly to lend credibility to McAbbee during that AfD, was also heavily edited by NYScholar, and is similarly non notable. Pegnawl (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gujadhur

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

nn vanity piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that a genuinely good and properly referenced article could be written about this family, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody's willing to put in enough work to make the article good and properly referenced — but this, as written, is semi-advertorialized and poorly referenced fluff. Two of its three footnotes are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the third is a book which glancingly namechecks the family's existence in a quote from a person who married into it — so even the one acceptable reliable source is still not substantive or independent enough to singlehandedly WP:GNG this topic all by itself as the only non-garbage source in play. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nematollah Nazeri

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

Biography of a journalist, writer and researcher. This just states that he existed, while literally saying nothing about his career that could even be measured against our notability criteria for any of his occupations at all, and it cites no reliable sources at all. The creator's username also corresponds to the name of one of the subject's children in the infobox, suggesting a probable conflict of interest. As always, however, Wikipedia is not a place to publish a personal obituary of your dad -- inclusion here requires that he actually has a quantifiable pass of a defined notability standard, and that he has reliable source coverage about him in media to verify it. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom fails WP:Politician ,WP:NAUTHOR or in any of his occupations and also comprehensively fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jabal Javi

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

Unsourced article fails WP:V, NGN, GEOLAND. There is no Omani enclave of Aturrah and no mountain in the UAE is named after a Spanish climber. Strange POV content here: not a 'Carter' mountain, but certainly not a UAE mountain. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there anything in Arabic? I can't WP:V through reliable English sources, but blog posts like [5] at least suggest it's real. Typing in "Aturrah" in multiple search engines brings up Mahda, which is the Omani enclave near Khor Fakkan. I have no idea why as that word isn't in most of these articles. SportingFlyer talk 06:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That blog post is itself derived from info taken from WP! That name, Atturah, seems to be for some reason attached to Nahwa, which is a village in a Sharjah exclave within Madha, but the 'legally recognised settlement' there is Nahwa. Got a colleague to do an Arabic search, WP is the only return for 'Jabal Javi' Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. SportingFlyer talk 10:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuhiro Yagi

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

No Notable. Sources as WP:ROUTINE. The guy was a young lion (rookie wrestler) with just one year of career. No notable matches and he retired. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable wrestler, fails GNG. All sources are primary or routine. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 02:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete Routine coverage doesn't meet the GNG and no indication he meets the notability standards for entertainers (which is what pro wrestlers fall under).Sandals1 (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Richardson Grows Up

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

Only reference is a primary source. Article doesn't establish notability. Matt14451 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only reference is a primary source" is an article quality issue, not a notability issue. Had the nominator carried out a WP:BEFORE, they may have found coverage from The Radio Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Chronicle. At worst it should be merged to Jon Richardson (comedian). --Michig (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a sub-section of Jon Richardson as I can't really see how this needs an article of its own. It offers scope for expansion even as a sub-section without being becoming overly expansive. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Furthermore, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon available sources, not just ones in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn and nominator blocked as a WP:SOCK. No issue if any non-sock editor wishes to re-nominate these pages for any (valid) reason. Thanks (non-admin closure) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of English cricketers (1787–1825)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete six lists as above. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections begins by advocating that editors must avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. Within WP:IINFO, item 3 deprecates excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Although these lists in their present form contain minimal statistics, it is evident that the main source of information must be the CricketArchive database, which is entirely statistical. The books cited as sources cover limited timespans and, in any case, they are also statistical because the overwhelming majority of players are mentioned only as names on match scorecards. This was the problem with Chitty (cricketer).

While I believe that these lists breach WP:IINFO and the trivia guideline, my rationale for nominating them is that they are lists for the sake of being lists. I do not believe they will ever be completed because their creator abandoned them and it appears that no one else is interested in making the effort necessary to find all qualifying players, dates and teams. The lists do not add value and are of little practical use to readers in their present unfinished state. They should have been begun as drafts and not promoted until they were well developed.

This entry replaces my original one which I have struck out below. I have decided to focus on policy, now that I know a little more about how this process operates, as the basis for the nomination. Thank you. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it is unlikely that work on this list will ever be completed given the effort that will be needed to find all qualifying players, dates and teams. Its creator evidently abandoned it eighteen months ago and no one else seems at all interested. That's because it does not add value and is just a list for the sake of being a list. It is far too big, attempting to cover too long a timespan.

It resurfaced a couple of weeks ago as a possible redirect target following the Chitty (cricketer) case but that idea is not being pursued as a neater and more suitable solution has been found whereby any redirects are to relevant articles whose notability and usefulness are not in doubt.

~~There are five more lists, forming a continuing series, and those are in an even worse state than this one. I think all six should go. The other five are:~~

~~Thanks. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (and by the way, the other articles have not had an AfD banner placed so should not be deleted in any case until this has been in place for the prescribed time). In the nominated article, every entry is a blue link, so amounts to a list of notable cricketers and thus meets WP:NNC. The other articles are explicitly lists of players who have played in first class matches, which is at the level of presumed notability per WP:NCRICKET. In both cases, it is untrue that "it is unlikely that work on this list will ever be completed". There is clear inclusion criteria and a finite, well-defined, number of possible entries. Lists of cricketers "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" as expounded in WP:NLIST.

The nomination is full of non-policy-based rationales for deletion; WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NOTIMELIMIT, the creator abandoned it, and "does not add value" sounds like a WP:IDLI argument to me. As for the argument that it is too big, WP:SPINOUT is the relevant guideline here, which calls for splitting the article, not deletion. In short, the closer should be pretty much discount the proposer's arguments as irrelevant. SpinningSpark 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to place a banner on each of these pages and keep them in this same discussion. I'll look into that and see if the introductory page helps. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The cricketers concerned satisfy WP:NCRICKET and the lists are valid, if in need of improvement. --Michig (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spinningspark. Harrias ^talk 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To everyone referencing WP:NCRIC and its metapages: the argument you're looking for is at WP:LISTN, no more, no less—particularly as WP:CRIC is clearly corrupt. Happy editing, ——SerialNumber54129 11:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not say what you think it says, but don't let that get in the way of good old misrepresentation. WP:DGAF applies. I am actually pointing out an argument based on policy rather than a local project, which some would say was a Good Thing. I say nothing about LISTN being good enough for you :D ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTN isn't a policy. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of WP:N. ——SerialNumber54129 12:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N isn't a policy either. --Michig (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NLIST. Question whether the nominator is trying to circumnavigate the non-deletion of Chitty, which was merged into this article and now they want to delete the article, thus deleting the Chitty article too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS much? :p ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can I withdraw the nomination? It looks as if the policies override my concerns about the state of the article. If they are to be kept, I'd suggest shorter timespans and limit each player to one list, the period in which he made his debut. Thanks. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HSE Art and Design School

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

Importance? I am pretty sure we usually don't have standalone articles for faculties even for the top universities (e.g. Harvard) Openlydialectic (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If someone looks at the, e. g. Template:Harvard University, it would be totally clear that the argument of "don't have standalone articles for faculties even for the top universities (e.g. Harvard)" is totally false. As the nomination don't have extra arguments, the whole nomination is false as well. So speedy keep and give the nominator an instruction to not to spread information on Wikipedia that is so much false—Wikipedia is in favor of truth, not untrunth. --ssr (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not very much clear what the nominator tries to do with his single word "Importance?". The article have enough content based on reliable sources, which are properly formatted and explained. And the article, with its sources, is being nominated just with one word "Importance?". This is not how Wikipedia is made. It's like I would say "User?", or "Nomination?", or "Contributions?"—almost no sense. --ssr (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for administrator: ssr was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a university. It's merely a school of another university. We don't usually have articles on these unless they're very well-known. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So let's see Category:Moscow State University: many articles and a big subcategory called "Moscow State University faculty‎". So "don't usually have articles on faculties" is still not true. --ssr (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - And many of them should probably be deleted. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Have you actually looked at the faculty category? It doesn't include what you seem to think it does! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Many of them should probably be deleted" is a totally wrong approach. If many people have created many Wikipedia articles then Wikipedia should handle this stuff not try to delete it. --ssr (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not how we work. That's not what our notability guidelines say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        They say if a Category:University of London contains many faculties, and Category:Moscow State University contains many faculties, and Category:University of Paris contains many faculties—"many of them should probably be deleted" as a result of a single AfD nomination for a faculty? No, I won't believe that. I will better believe the nomination is wrong, and the argumentation for it is mistaken. --ssr (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither Category:University of London nor Category:University of Paris contain "many faculties". They contain a number of notable schools with sources proving their notability. They certainly do not contain every faculty or even most faculties of the universities in question. In general we do not keep articles on individual faculties unless they are extremely well-known and their notability can be proven by independent sourcing. This particular school is only five years old and is a non-notable school of the university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Category:Harvard University schools and Category:Colleges and schools by university contain a lot. I doubt if notability for a faculty requires "many years". I suppose notability is established via sources. Usually a single WP:RS may be enough to establish notability for an article on *whatever*. Wikipedia has to cover topics notable via sources. Wikipedia itself should not measure "how many years" and "how extremely well-known a school is". --ssr (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Essentially that does equate to notability. And I'm not seeing any notability for this school. Simple as that. A university department is not notable simply for existing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP because its WP:ROUTINE or self-published sources do not constitute WP:SIGCOV proving notability. It's also an un-notable sub-school of a larger school, which doesn't just get to share notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leila George

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

The article on this actress appears to coast on inherited notability via her boyfriend (Sean Penn). Coverage on her own merits is very scarce. Despite the currently active editor's issues with "third-level redirects", a redirect to Mortal Engines seems indicated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - certainly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, and absent press about her and Penn, nothing in-depth about herself, so fails WP:GNG. Wouldn't object to a redirect to the most likely target, which I agree is Mortal Engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in notables productions, Mother, May I Sleep with Danger? (2016 film) and Black Swan's The Seagull, satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep~~delete~~ Most of the coverage seems to be re Penn so NOT INHERITED. The subject does seem to have some merit so perhaps TOOSOON - see what happens after more work / is released and notability can be better seen. Aoziwe (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to weak keep, based on WP:NEXIST referencing by duffbeerforme. Be good if the article has some of these currently absent. Aoziwe (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. A significant other of a notable person is not a sufficient reason to establish notability. This is a case of notability cannot be inherited. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you justify a claim that she Obviously fails NACTRESS when I have already explained how she passes it? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the delete arguments focus on not inherited but that by itself is not a reason for deletion. Given that she is shown to be notable without a connection to that other person any reference to "inherited" becomes irrelevant. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a single notable role in a Lifetime tv movie doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is that relevant to this afd? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One unremarkable TV movie has aired, while a couple of other films are in post-production; that obviously doesn't satisfy NACTOR. Plus the press coverage is for her relationship with Penn. (The Penn is mightier than the George.) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG (consider the notability is not inherited from Sean Penn for WP:NOTINHERITED). Fails WP:NACTOR easily for lack of significant notable roles (1 role is not notable enough). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Clearly fails WP:GNG andWP:NACTOR as he had not made that remarkable characters to prove as an actress and fails to have reliable sources independently of herself to prove the notability.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above comments (User:onel5969, Clarityfiend, Jovanmilic97, and ?Vinodbasker) claiming one role are simply wrong. They are purely focused on films and are (willfully?) ignoring theatre productions which are explicitly included in WP:NACTOR. Unless anyone can justify why theatre productions are unworthy then they should be discounted and this article should be kept based on a pass of WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Black Swan State Theatre Company production is hardly Australia's answer to Broadway. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend. No one said it was. Productions don't need to be on Broadway to be notable. They become notable the same way as other things from coverage. This has that coverage, see below. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of that staging

Borlaug, Odna (22 August 2014), "THE contrasting values of 19th century Russia are emphasised in director Kate Cherry's presentation of The Seagull.", Weekend Courier

Zampatti, David (16 August 2014), "Handsome Seagull flies the traditional route" (PDF), The West Australian

Laurie, Victoria (15 August 2014), "Histrionic Seagull fails to soar", The Australian

Other coverage of the staging.

Laurie, Victoria (13 August 2014), "Chekhov for mother and child", The Australian

MacNaughton, Tanya (7 August 2014), "friends re-unite for play", Joondalup Times

Lim, Annie (1 August 2014), "Birds of a feather", Wish Magazine

O'Connell, David (19 August 2014), "The Seagull: Leila George", X-Press Mag

Symonds, Kristy (3 August 2014), "Family Matters", The Sunday Times

None of these articles mention Penn.

Delete This article about a young actress essentially just starting her career fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR because the coverage of or her roles in one film and a few stage plays does not constitute WP:SIGCOV proving notability. Maybe in five years she will become notable enough for an article, maybe not. She also should receive no inherited notability from her famous boyfriend. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the coverage of Mother, May I Sleep with Danger? and The Seagull not constitute WP:SIGCOV? How does she fail WP:NACTOR. Which of the multiple sources primarily about her are not good enough for GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm expanding my keep comment to say that she passes GNG based on [6], [7], [8]. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear dispute over the adequacy of the sourcing for this article, but the "keep" side has not achieved a consensus that it is sufficient, nor the "delete" side that it is not. That doesn't seem likely to be solved with relisting, though perhaps a future discussion can shed more light if additional sourcing is (or is not) forthcoming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. The sourcing for this article is a mere two obituaries and a GRG list entry, and fails WP:GNG because she lacks WP:SIGCOV proving notability. The only other sources I could find on her WP:BEFORE are WP:ROUTINE generic obituary type sources or brief mentions. Even if these sources meant she was somehow notable, then WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E should almost certainly apply as there is nothing to say about her other than the basic trivial longevity stuff (born, married, had kids, held a title, died). Her presence on six separate lists is enough, as this article is never going to expand beyond a WP:PERMASTUB. The article was deleted once before for lacking WP:SIGCOV proving notability and recreated on the false premise that the oldest in the world is automatically notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though there is no guidance for notability on longevity, there are guidelines for notability in general (WP:N) and she fulfills them well, starting with the Guinness Record. To mentions a few sources that covered her (in life and death), LAT, a Time's book, a longevity book, CBS, CNN, Telegraph. There are other sources (here) and some in Portuguese (here). Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 21:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a Guinness Record is only inherently notable to Guinness, not in the outside world. The LA Times article was a local obituary (look at the url - they filed it under local), the Times book includes a mere quote from her as far as I can tell, and the longevity book just includes her in a list of old people. Such a list does not ever in any way prove her notability or anyone else's. The CBS and Telegraph articles were WP:ROUTINE coverage of such deaths (oldest in U.S.), and she has a passing fluff mention in the CNN article about her secret to longevity. None of this WP:ROUTINE coverage or other passing mentions that exist is close to satisfying WP:SIGCOV requirements for notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and for full disclosure I've been actively involved in discussions about paring back the number of supercentenarian articles. Per the nominator's comments the sources don't have any in-depth coverage of the subject herself, which is reflected in the article that basically says "she lived, she lived a long time, she kicked off". Delaying the inevitable isn't inherently notable, as the dearth of coverage shows. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are to follow the notability guidelines, we would not be considering this article for deletion. I found a few more useful sources that validate Domingues' public and international distinction: India Times, the Spanish Magnet. And then, for the scholarly publications: her name appeared variously in the well-reputed, Rejuvenation Research, see here for the last time; and the Africa Today here (Vol. 49, No. 3 (Autumn, 2002), pp. 135-136). It does not matter if the reference came in the local section of the LAT, it was published there and in many more trustworthy and prominent venues, nevertheless. It does not matter, either, that most references are short mentions. She was basically famous for one thing: outliving most other humans, and that is what the notes are all about. But what makes her notable for Wikipedia is the fact that her feat was covered across continents: the Americas, Europe, and Asia (see the sources already cited for their geolocations). We should not be bending the notoriously flexible guidelines so much as to break them here just because we are "paring back the number of supercentenarian articles." Each article deserves individual examination.Rosario (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you cited do not constitute WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The India article is a passing fluff mention only, as is the Spanish article. The Rejuvenation article is about many different people, not just her and was a WP:ROUTINE publication. We don't have access to the Africa article, only Virginia Tech students do, so it adds no weight to this discussion. Are you even actually reviewing any of these sources before talking up their merits? Local coverage of a subject also carries less weight then national and international coverage of a subject. This AfD is also not just about notability, but how the article fails WP:NOPAGE and WP:BIO1E. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12: To ask at this point if I am reading the sources is to break the spirit of the WP:GF, and feels like WP:BULLY. I could ask a similar question to you about what I wrote above. And to say that these sources "do not constitute WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG" is to ignore that they are indeed part of the reliable sources we use in Wikipedia. Actually, the problem is not the sources, but the difference in reading them. You read them as insufficient. Me, on the other hand, read them as more than enough. As I explained before, most of these mentions are short because she was notable not for anything else than living longer than others (with the possible exception of her odd advice about makeup). You cannot expect more content in these sources. It would be unfair. Above, I gave the complete citation for the journal's article in case the link was not accessible to others. But for the sake of convenience, here I quote the relevant portion:

The Cape Verdean experience underscores how difficult it is to ascribe identity to apparently obvious characteristics like race and color. When Adelina Domingues died, on 21 August 2002, at the age of 114 in San Diego, she had been recognized as the oldest living American. The Guinness Book of Records cites a baptismal record that fixes her birth date at 18 February 1888 in Cape Verde, although she always insisted it was 1887. The administrator of the nursing home where she had lived since 1995 called her "our feisty little Portuguese sweetheart."

I read this reference to ms Domingues as evidence of her notability. How many supercentenarians have been mentioned in a scholarly review not related to longevity studies mainly because of the broad coverage of her death? That's in top of the LAT, ABC, and many other media outlets that mentioned her. In my eyes, that's certainly NOT WP:ROUTINE.

The WP:BIO1E, which is a guideline that admits to the difficulty of single-events articles (i.e., deleting them is not so easily settled), states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." But I see two events, (1) living above 114 and then (2) getting such a wide recognition. And even if you think that there is only one, the significance and her role in it justifies the article. It is not difficult to understand that a Guinness record on its own would not have achieved enough notability for a Wikipedia article, but when it has been mentioned as wide and far as Domingues', that's a different story. Rosario (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though a bunch of places seem to have covered her, even by your own telling none of these articles included anything meaningful beyond a few statistics and had absolutely no actual, in-depth coverage; she lived, she died, that's about it. The result is what we have today; an article that says nothing substantive about the subject, since none of the sources actually do, and instead consists of a few paragraphs of longevity fanfluff masquerading as an actual article. Nothing that statistics on a list can't express. A bunch of places simply noting in a one-off paragraph that she died is not anything beyond routine, and Rejuvenation Research is useless for determining notability; it's a vanity journal rife with fringe content that utterly fails as an reliable source for anything (see the discussion here for further background). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per The Blade of the Northern Lights. The above quote seems highly unremarkable to me (it's just a passing mention) and your paragraphs of text and whining that I'm bullying you do nothing to sway me away from the fact based explanations that have been given that this article should be deleted. Also, it's not my fault the link you provided leads to a source only students at a particular school can access. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur with the nom that There is no notability guideline or policy that says “the oldest X is notable”. It's basically the luck of the draw. Coverage is of routine variety and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This individual was clearly non-notable until she became the world's oldest person, at which point she became notable when her obituary later was reported in multiple press outlets as demonstrated by Caballero. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that she was clearly not notable, but it was over 10 years after her death when groups like the GRG started to claim she had once been the WOP. She never had that claimed distinction in life and there is no policy or guideline that the oldest anything is notable, which was the sole reason this article was recreated after being deleted before. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your calling her a WOP. She's not even Italian. E Eng 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I had no idea that WOP as a regular word is an insult. Thank you for adding some humor and education to this AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newshunter12, you are obviously a person of refinement and erudition. Have you visited The Museums? E Eng 17:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E I have now, and I must say it is quite the witty and insightful place you have there. The share and the compliments are much appreciated. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 00:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. A GRG table and two routine obituaries does not make someone notable. Entry in a list of is fine. Even if notable, WP:NOPAGE should apply anyway as the article is never going to expand beyond "born, got married, worked, had kids, got old, died". — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommanderLinx (talk • contribs)
Delete/redirect. NOPAGE. E Eng 23:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Caballero. Into the Rift (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So nice of you to appear out of nowhere just to try to throw wrenches into longevity AfDs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First choice: keep. The sources provided by Caballero1967 (talk · contribs) demonstrate that Adelina Domingues passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
The local obituary in the major newspaper the Los Angeles Times provides plenty of biographical coverage about her:
1. She was born in 1888 on the Cape Verde Islands off West Africa.
2. "Her father was an Italian harbor pilot, her mother of Portuguese ancestry."
3. "She did missionary work for the Church of the Nazarene in Africa and the Cape Verde Islands."
4. In 1907 she immigrated to the United States on a schooner named David Story.
5. She "was a vigorous street-corner preacher during her years in Boston and New Bedford, Mass."
6. At age 19, she married Jose, a captain of merchant ships, who died in 1950 of cancer.
7. She was a skilled seamstress.
8. She "lectured a public gathering that too many Americans take freedom for granted" at age 100.
9. Before 107, she lived alone. At 107, she moved into a retirement facility.
10. She was politically conservative.
11. She was a pen pal of President Ronald Reagan during his presidency.
12. She was a naturalized American citizen.
This obituary from the Associated Press (article is via CBS News) provides more biographical coverage of her:
1. She was born in the Cape Verde Islands on Feb. 19, 1888.
2. Her father was a Italian sea captain and her mother was a Cape Verdean.
3. She married whaling captain Jose Domingues.
4. She and Jose Domingues moved to New Bedford, Massachusetts in 1907.
5. She and Jose Domingues had four children (three sons and one daughter).
6. One son died at age 2. One son and one daughter died when they were teenagers.
7. After Jose Domingues died in 1950, she moved to Southern California to be near her son Frank who died in Palm Desert in 1998.
8. At age 100, the "Today" show showed her photo and Willard Scott said her name.
9. She voted while she was in her 100s.
10. She wrote "admiring letters" to President Ronald Reagan.
11. She lived at the Brighton Place nursing home in the Spring Valley area of San Diego County from 1995 until her death on August 21, 2002.
12. Her remains were planned to be buried at a family plot in Massachusetts.
Second choice: merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems.
My first choice is to retain the article as a standalone article because the sources give an overview of her life and provide significant biographical material about her.
Cunard (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times is a major paper, however, its coverage of Domingues was just local in nature (look at the news articles url - it was filed under local) and the CBS obituary was WP:ROUTINE coverage of the death of the oldest living American, which happens again and again since old people die. None of this means she meets WP:GNG because she lacks WP:SIGCOV of her proving notability. Lots of people with momentarily interesting quirks get vanity obituaries published because they are an interesting curiosity - it doesn't make them notable individuals nor does some info existing about them make them notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent per WP:ATD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, probably delete. She was notable for her age for only a short time in 2002, unlike some other supercentenarians who appeared in documentaries and articles for some years before their deaths. However, she does appear in a Dictionary of African Christian Biography, for her work ministering in Brava in the 1950s - her entry in that dictionary was included several years before she died. But I don't know what the notability criteria for missionaries are. I suspect that she was considered important in her local church only, apart from a brief visit back to Cape Verde (where she may have been remembered for some time, as apparently all the taverns and dance halls closed due to her influence). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In earlier years, we had an excessive number of articles on supercentenarians, some poorly documented, and most only the oldest person within a particular country. We did well to delete most of these, but to removethe articles on those who were the world's oldest is going much too far in the opposite direction. There are sufficient sources, and it's a reasonable thing for an `e to cover. Almanacs always did, and according to WP:NOT , WP possess some of the characteristics of an almanac. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Adelina was at one point the World's Oldest Person (not the oldest in a specific country), and as there is coverage of her (albeit limited), I think she meets the criteria for inclusion. RebeccaGreen above says "She was notable for her age for only a short time in 2002" - I feel that being notable for a short time (other than ONEEVENT type - which this is not, I think, by common convention) is sufficient to meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ljiljana Crnogaj Fulepp

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

This subject that does not meet appear to meet WP:BASIC, and finding no evidence that WP:ARTIST is met. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of minor name checks. I'm unable to access the BYU studies article listed in the references section to determine the depth of coverage, so that's one source that may be usable, if it provides significant coverage. However, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required. This article listed in the article published by Meridian Magazine provides some coverage, but it's reliability may be questionable for Wikipedia's purposes (here's their "about us" page). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has two sources, both of which are LDS/Mormon related, and therefore not independent. A search found only a few more trivial sources in Mormon publications. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard of being indepdent being applied here is absurd. BYU Studies is an academic publication, that Fuleep has no control over. Meridian Magazine is an indepdent publication, not even owned by the LDS Church, and Fulepp has no position of authority in the LDS Church. The notion that indepdent publications covering a religious perspective cannot be used to show the notability of a religious artist is truly absurd. There seems to be an attempt to exclude every "LDS related" source. Applying this so broadly has just become absurd. Meridian Magazine is a reliable source and so is BYU studies, this gives us two reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Upon further consideration, I do not consider Meridian Magazine to be a reliable source. Their "about us" page states that their editorial focus is specifically upon analyzing "events of our tumultuous time through a Latter-day Saint lens". This is not journalistically objective, because only one type of viewpoint is presented, rather than all viewpoints being represented in an objective manner, as typical reliable sources function. Rather, Meridian Magazine bases their analysis from the viewpoint of mormon gospel only, from only a Mormon faith perspective, even stating on their "about us" page, "Meridian assumes that whatever problem the world offers, the gospel answers." Any news publication that "assumes" in this manner, from only one religious perspective, is not a reliable source. Per all of this, I also consider Meridian Magazine to be a primary source that is not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree on both counts (namely, that the source in question is not reliable for stated reasons and that it is on top of that a primary source). Your argument that "one type of viewpoint is presented" disqualifies virtually all religiously affiliated sources from being used for pretty much any purpose, since they invariably write from the position of the religion in question. Also, Meridian Magazine is not used here to support the truth of a religious claim (where, granted, it would be unreliable), but to support basic and generally unremarkable facts about someone's biography, which is a different matter altogether. Your claim that it is also a primary source is likewise overly broad (e.g. all Christian sources writing about Christians would therefore automatically be primary sources, which is absurd), not backed by any arguments, and does not address the central counter-argument by John Pack Lambert above (that Fulepp has no position of authority in the LDS Church) at all. Note that, per WP:SECONDARY, "secondary" does not mean "independent". GregorB (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's something weird about the BYU ref. In the article, it is given as Davis Bitton. "Images of Faith: Art of the Latter-day Saints" in BYU Studies Vol. 36, no. 3. There is no URL, but I think this is the correct URL: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol36/iss4/9/. Problem is, that article does not mention Fulepp. It is a book review of an exhibition catalogue by the "museum of church history and art in salt lake city", which I think is the Church History Museum. The book is Oman, Richard G; Davis, Robert O (1995). Images of faith: art of the Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co. ISBN 0875799124. I'm unable to verify that Fulepp's work is described in that book, because there are no libraries anywhere near where I live that hold it, and there appear to be no online copies of it. It is quite possible that Fulepp's work was included in the exhibition, but if so, I cannot find any sources for it. Still, such a single exhibition does not amount to either significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject or representation within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums or a being substantial part of a significant exhibition or any of the other notability criteria for creative professionals. --Vexations (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Fulepp is mentioned on p. 220 of the linked BYU Studies document. There is one sentence that mentions one of her photographs and another person's photograph. So, about 20 words of coverage. Mentioned, but not even close to significant coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: I must be looking in the wrong place. Which linked document are we talking about? URL? --Vexations (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: This one: [9], which is the PDF from the download link on the BYU Studies URL you found. Page 220, 2nd full paragraph, first sentence. Bakazaka (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Setting aside whether these two publications are independent or significant enough to be WP:RS, even if they were, they are but two sources that offer passing mentions of the subject of the article. Two passing references are not enough to establish GNG or ARTIST. --Theredproject (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YNW Melly

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

Non-notable musician; fails WP:GNG. Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Billboard recently made a feature about him and he has thousands of mentions on Google News. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changing my vote to Weak keep as The Fader article that I was about to add to his article turned out to be an advertorial. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough sources to meet GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has around half a million subscribers and I checked a video crossing 40 Million. Plus google news show multiple references. Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. WP:G5 by Iridescent. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DWPN-AM

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA reated by a COI and SPA and possible SOCK Dom from Paris (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It's a Bertrand101 handiwork, salt it, end of conversation. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus clearly demonstrates that this article's subject is notable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul's Rock

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

Fails WP:NBOOK; there is very slight independent coverage of the book. Redirect to author (Frank Parker Day) seems indicated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This paper shows that the subject is of at least minor historical interest as an attempted retelling of Mi'kmaw folklore through a colonialist Canadian lens, but that alone falls short of notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep This book and it's author has been feature in many articles and won many awards. This book, features many historical Nova Scotia landmarks, people and it's stories. This book is still talked about in liturary circles and is the subject of many local debates, which are features in many online articles and offline newspaper publications in the Maritimes. This book is described as a lost classic during the dirty 30's, and would have been a best selling author if he was published in a different time. I feel that the page needs to be updated further. But meets the notoriety for a book that isn't spoken about much online, but is still feature in modern university research papers almost 100 years after the fact.

Why this book meets the criteria: - The book is and has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, universities and post-graduate programs in Canada. The book's author is so historically significant with two of the author's written books have been considered notable. Snowy Badger (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provied a few references for these 100+ research papers? I'm not seeing them. Same goes for evidence of this particular title being taught at schools or univesrities. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this book they profile his work and talk about the university's that have studied this book and his other works. I think McGill university has been the major contrubuter to his work being republished and used in education. ^[1]Snowy Badger (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Significant coverage in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere. Book review in the New York Times on 27 March 1932, according to the index: [10]. I suspect there are several newspaper book reviews here: [11]. Even one will pass criteria 1 of NBOOK when added to the NYT review. Even if this book was not notable, deletion would still violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because the page could be merged/redirected to the author Frank Parker Day. James500 (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll grant that this novel isn't as famous as Rockbound today, but there are sources to improve it with — in addition to those that have already been pointed out, I was also quite easily able to find a book review in The Globe and Mail on a ProQuest search. It also certainly has reviews in Atlantic Canadian newspapers, because Frank Parker Day was a very big deal in Atlantic Canada in his time, but I don't personally have access to the archiving databases for Atlantic Canadian media coverage prior to 1981, so I'm not the guy who can find them. And since many of the links in James500's newspapers.com search are indeed dated 1932, he's almost certainly correct in his assessment that some of them are notability-supporting reviews — now that almost everything on newspapers.com is behind the "publisher extra" paywall even for those of us who had Wikipedia Library access, I'm not the guy who can retrieve those either, but somebody surely can. For a book published in 1932, the best sources would not be expected to show up in a simple Google search — but Wikipedia does not require our sources to necessarily be online, so archived older media coverage and critical analysis in non-fiction books are still perfectly acceptable. I've already removed the bad sources, while adding the G&M review as a starter toward the correct kind — but yes, the article and its sourcing are improvable. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doraemon (2016 anime)

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

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Doraemon (2016 anime). Adam9007 (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that such an anime exists. A search for Korean-language sources using the alleged official subtitle "비밀도구 박물관에 세계 여행" yields no results. The article citing references like a book titled Sassy and Subservient: Chinese girls and media in the urbanizing countryside really suggests blatant falsehoods. ℯ xplicit 02:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, cannot verify existence of article subject, much less the specific claims offered in the article, in reliable sources. Bakazaka (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content is almost completely unsourced. Not seeing much WP:RS out there. Even if notable, needs a WP:TNT. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#1 - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OrCAD

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

Good faith search finds no significant independent third-party coverage in reliable sources. Nearly 100% of the articles in news sites or journals that cover this product are just reprints of press releases. ^Bongo_matic 02:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. This product is the subject of several full-length. While whether these books are actually independent of the vendor of the project is dubious, the fact that they are sold by third parties would seem a good reason to withdraw the nomination in any case. ^Bongo_matic 07:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. A misnomination per WP:BEFORE. The quality of the article in the current shape can certainly be improved (it has many gaps of information which need to be filled and various loose ends fixed, in particular after a huge section discussing parts of the company history has been deleted recently without consent after it has been a stable part of the article for half a decade). However, that doesn't even sligthly affect the notability of the topic OrCAD "as is", which has been one of the truely professional and traditional EDA CAD tools for decades. As an encyclopedia, we obviously need an article about it - actually, the question is more, if one article is sufficient or if we should have separate articles about the company and products like OrCAD or PSpice. (At the present stage, I would prefer one combined article with sections split out when enough stuff has accumulated, but others seem to prefer to split out an article about the company even now.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - given the information that has come to light. The nom. should themselves possibly consider to do a speedy keep close.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Villani Scicolone

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

Delete: as non-notable. Does not acquire notability because of her husband (Romano Mussolini), father-in-law (Benito Mussolini), or sister (Sophia Loren); redirect to any of which is OK.Quis separabit? 02:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete Anna Maria Villani Scicolone. Quis separabit? 02:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Sucks

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

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are not properly sourced. This was a good faith creation in 2005, when our criteria for the notability of musicians were a lot looser than they are in 2018 -- but the guy simply doesn't have the media coverage needed to clear the standards that apply today. Five of the six footnotes here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and the only one that's actually to a media outlet is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in a local interest magazine in his own hometown. There simply isn't a notability claim here that passes WP:NMUSIC as it stands today, and there's no quality sourcing on which to base a WP:GNG claim on either. Bearcat (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only secondary WP:RS I see is this interview in Ottawa Life Magazine. He needs at least one more to meet WP:GNG. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mavie Österreicher

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Kleuske (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS, and a quick WP:BEFORE search (which I suspect the nom didn't do given that they nominated only 5 minutes after creation) found some good looking German language sources. Iffy★Chat -- 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? I read German and (even after a second BEFORE check) found nothing but a few passing mentions. If you have sources, cite them. Do not expect others to take your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (is that allowed?) Passes WP:NTENNIS because of participation in a WTA main draw (criterion 3). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NTennis#3: "Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments" (emphasis mine). Ramskogler was had a wildcard entry there (not the main draw), so she fails that criterion. Kleuske (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you're right that singles qualifying doesn't count for NTENNIS, the doubles main draw does (This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players). SNGs have bright lines to avoid the kind of arguments we're having right now. Iffy★Chat -- 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, since the objections above are copy-pasted from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadja Ramskogler (or vice-versa), I'll just follow suit. Kleuske (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS and tennis project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements for doubles players. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as she is an unsourced WP:BLP/fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 22:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quick Google search yields quite a good amount of non-English news sources. This article needs a bit of help, but not deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep the article if it's properly referenced, but it's problematic as it stands. SportingFlyer talk 23:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS #3. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to South West Coaches. Tone 22:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sureline

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

Non notable small-lived bus company, No evidence of notability (Only substantial source is this, rest are mentions, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with South West Coaches. Vorbee (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with South West Coaches. It's already mentioned there. MB 00:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapno Ke Bhanwar Mein

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

Delete because it fails WP:TVSHOW So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and WP:TVSHOW. FitIndia ^Talk 07:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – topic does not meet WP:GNG. Despite airing on Life OK, which suggests that it may be notable per WP:TVSHOW, I fail to see significant coverage of this show in reliable sources. There is a bit of coverage on the involvement of Nigaar Khan (mainly in a single news article copied across multiple sites), but this appears in the context of her career and I cannot find significant coverage of the show. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akoori (web series)

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

Non-notable web series with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. Please note current sources are not reliable except mid-day.com and scroll.in (interview) which is insufficient to support notability and notable cast members do not grant notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That the creator has been blocked for sock-puppeteering. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing there to prove notability, as per nominator fails WP:NFILM. FitIndia ^Talk 07:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behmor

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

Nothing particularly notable about this company. The article is currently pure promotion. Even if the promotional side of this was resolved (yes I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), I still don't see anything notable here. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggested switching from speedy to AfD since there are several (seemingly independent) citations given at the bottom. However, I'm unsure of how reliable (or unreliable) those sources are in the coffee world, could anyone here comment on their reliability? ArguMentor (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m looking at getting links from prestigious award bodies that have recognised the company for their works in the past, will that let it stay? I also removed some overly promotional words from the article. Kolapoimam —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability for the company and I'm unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I realise that for some smaller companies, it is difficult to distinguish between the company and their product(s) but since this article is about the company, I am disregarding awards for their product. Existing references are not intellectually independent and are based on company announcements or interviews involving the founder, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Asad Butt

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines ACTOR and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could have been argued before 2018, but this year, winning a (if not "the" in the country/field) major award for his acting on TV and making his film debut don't warrant such skepticism on the legitimacy of this page IMO, even if I do admit the lack of "reliable" sources (even if I got some decent one ultimately) might be a (temporary ?) concern, cheers. Arslan-San (talk)

— Note to closing admin: Arslan-San (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Just one award - I would say Wikipedia:NotJustYet. --Saqib (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but WP:ANYBIO assumes that winning *one* "notable" award might indicate "notability", and this award is perhaps the most prestigious in the concerned field, which is the moving spirit behind my desire to create this page (apart from the fact that he had a role in one of the biggest movie hits the same year), but yeah I'm aware that some more links/sources would be welcome, even if I still believe that deleting the page altogether would be too premature, cheer. Arslan-San (talk)

I don't find Hum Awards, a well-known or significant award. --Saqib (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Hum Awards definitely are in this particular context (that is, Pakistani dramas), otherwise you won't find any "significiant award" at all for him to win anytime soon, cheers. Arslan-San (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good case of WP:TOOSOON. Lacking coverage from secondary sources which violates WP:GNG (here it is trivial or just a passing mention for a movie he only had a special appereance in). Main Haar Nahi Manoun Gi is only a single notable role he has been in, so that also fails WP:NACTOR. He might be notable in the future but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural Keep - as well as no reason being offered by the Nom, they also did so as a sock puppet. I've had a brief look at the article to check it wasn't a blatant notability failure, which it was not. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Singh Dhull

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

Reason Hmrs457 (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC) No notable personality[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against an uninvolved editor creating a draft for this subject in the future if sources supporting notability become available. bd2412 T 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Lough

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

Probably WP:G11 but I wanted to put it through AFD just to be sure. Article is primarily written by the subject or someone close to the subject [12]. No secondary, independent, reliable coverage of the director. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Spleodrach (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that there's just enough notability here to keep, but if it is kept then I absolutely think that the COI editor should not edit this or any other article that they have a COI with. The material they add is just so promotional that it actually detracts from the articles and any possible notability rather than assisting in it. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform to promote someone or something. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sources and couldn't find anything that described this director in detail. The sources that were directly talking about the director were interviews. Even if secondary sources were to turn up though, I feel like WP:TNT applies to an article that's so tainted by the subject. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 10:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Ruggeri

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

This article has no citations to reliable sources. I searched the internet for sources in English and Italian and found nothing. I nominated it for prod, which was blocked by DGG, who provided two "sources" from Italian Wikipedia that were mere links to the wikipedia pages for Italian listings publications. I googled them together with the subject's name and found some mere mentions in Teche Rai that would back a few of the claims made in the article but that are not useful for establishing notability. While he has had roles in some notable films, they were all as bit parts and extras, as can be verified by searching for his name on the English wikipedia pages for those films. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If nobody managed to find any source to what I have written (reporting exclusively a translation from the Italian Wikipedia page), I allow those in duty to do whatever they consider right with the page, including deletion. I am not sufficiently stubborn to insist on keeping pages that will sooner or later be deleted, even if I have created those pages. AleCapHollywood (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 06:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own searching fails to find any WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as long as better sources can be found.TH1980 (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a Google search for this person does not throw up many things other than the Italian Wikipedia page on this actor. This article has only two references and the only external link is to the Internet Movie database, and Wikipedia is not meant to be internet movie database. Vorbee (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Voice actor with no significant coverage counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremey Hunsicker

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

Eh? We have an article here on the singer of a Journey tribute band. Doesn't pass GNG, article is amateurishly yet promotionally written, no inherent notability of course, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This singer is notable because he was considered by the band Journey as a possible lead singer. He auditioned with and wrote music with the band Journey. Additionally he received song-writing credit on the Journey album Revelation for co-writing the song Never Walk Away. This makes him a platinum-selling songwriter. Any fan of Journey music history would find him of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.94.174.18 (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being one of three co-writers of one song on a notable album containing 24 songs does not, by itself, meet WP:COMPOSER. A single reliable source (Roanoke Times) is the story of this subject almost joining Journey (band), but it's more of a local boy makes good type coverage, relayed through a primary point of view and not corroborated by a third party. If it was, I'd make an argument for redirect to the Journey article. Otherwise, nothing of importance cited as references and a search turns up nothing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADDA (software)

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 may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable apartment management software for "home owners [sic] associations around the globe", borderline G11, fails WP:NCORP, and some may even say it is A7 material.
Continuously rejected at AFC, see User talk:Krishanuthe13th, the article was resolutely cut-pasted to mainspace as ApartmentADDA and since moved.
PROD was unsurprisingly removed by an IP, as is their right. Sam Sailor 09:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Entirely promotional with no indications of notability. Wikipedia is not a Yellow pages alternative nor a substitute for a corporate website. I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. References are rehashes of corporate-produced announcements or interviews with customers or connected persons. References fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Maple Messenger

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

Very local notability. In fact it is a supplement of a non-notable local newspaper, Macon The News (deleted at AfD in 2015). Unsourced currently. Couldn't find anything substantial that can help demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete recently supplement of small newspaper which was decided to be non-notable, article almost certainly exists to make it seem more appealing to prospective advertisers. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the newspaper is non-notable, its pull-out supplements are surely even less notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Since nobody opposes deletion. Sandstein 14:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Powers

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Powers has certainly co-written several chart hits across Europe, but I cannot find any coverage that provides any detail about Mr. Powers' life, career or songwriting roles. The one link in the article is dead and it appears there is no archive available – in any case it looks as though it may have been a blog or personal website, as "Eskildsen" is a Danish surname. Richard3120 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 17:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have mixed views on this. First, my search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to convince me that WP:GNG is met (of course, sources not in English wouldn't have shown up). On the other hand, he might meet WP:COMPOSER#1 which says a songwriter is notable if he wrote or co-wrote the lyrics or music for "a notable composition." If we take that to mean a WP-notable song, then Power has co-written several of those and meets that SNG. If it means something more substantial than a pop hit then he probably doesn't. Papaursa (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then literally every songwriter credited on every song that's ever charted anywhere in the world qualifies for WP:COMPOSER, but I think we'd need something more than just that to say about them in order to pass WP:GNG as well. Richard3120 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment, but I wanted to see how others interpreted that clause--especially when there's no evidence that WP:GNG is met. So, barring any other sources being shown, I'm going to vote to delete. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cape Cod Canal. Sandstein 14:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Cod Canal Tunnel

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

The Cap Cod Canal Tunnel is a minor local joke that some residents of Cap Cod placed on bumper stickers to make fun of the bad traffic in the area. Not notable. Original creator is banned by the WMF from all projects. EnPassant (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cape Cod Canal. This has received some coverage in news and books, but not finding enough to qualify a standalone article. The Cape Cod Canal article has no mention of this, so merging will improve that article, making it more comprehensive (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short article is fine as is. It has sources. It debunks the myth of there being a tunnel. We don't need or want an opus. It is not part of the canal; it doesn't make obvious sense to cover it there instead. Frankly I don't think the article on the canal should mention this, that would tend to elevate the silly-ness about this. There exists List of crossings of the Cape Cod Canal which currently mentions this in a "See also" section. We have exactly the right degree of coverage on this topic already, IMHO.

Also, there is no deletion rationale, at all, in the deletion nomination. This could be closed by Speedy Keep or by administrative close by anyone for that reason. We don't need a discussion where no one has made a deletion nomination. --Doncram (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: Boston Globe: [ https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/06/29/only-cape-cod-canal-tunnel-were-real-traffic-backs-heading-cape/m9Gcy5TBmBcq0ED8vkeogJ/story.html If only the Cape Cod Canal Tunnel were real . . .]], and How to do Cape Cod Like a Loval? "I can’t tell you all of our tricks or my Cape Cod Canal tunnel pass would be revoked."; WCAI: "What infrastructures are being proposed to help the Cape’s towns deal with the increased numbers of cars an additional bridge would eventually bring?... The absurdity of such an approach was satirized a few decades ago when local vehicles began sporting bumper stickers that read “Cape Cod Canal Tunnel Pass,” a hoax that was actually believed by a large number of commuters and vacationers.". More, similar in several books, plus the 2000 Lanham Act trademark lawsuit. I kid you not. There was a lawsit over an alleged copyright violation of the design of the [Cape Cod Canal Tunnel] permit. There may indeed have been enough WP:SIGCOV to justify KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to have a couple of name checks in the Boston Globe, with no coverage about what it was, except for the local news article which elucidates it was a joke. This doesn't count as extensive coverage in major sources so it doesn't warrant a stand alone article. I'm sure someone could add a sentence to Cape Cod Canal which would more than cover it. Mramoeba (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last "Delete" vote should be understood as a "Redirect" vote at best, IMHO. I voted "Keep" above. There is no way this should be outright deleted. --Doncram (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with the opinions that this doesn't warrant a stand-alone article as it lacks extensive coverage. It can't be Redirected without some of the content being added somewhere, hence it should be Merged somewhere. As to where, I don't really think Cape Cod Canal is the best place since the primary issue is transportation congestion to/from Cape Cod - perhaps discuss at Cape Cod#Transportation. MB 00:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandalwood Cinema

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

WP:TOOSOON so far only trivial mentions. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (without prejudice) - nom is correct. Couldn't find any suitable sourcing, including specifically seeking coverage of the supposed big news story they broke. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UnDelete There are very few Media outlets in Kannada cinema. If there are, all of them are with local Kannada language. and presently Sandalwood Cinema is a growing online website with many upcoming mentions. I being a Journalist, i am aware of this online website growing faster CursedSoulFromIndia (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CursedSoulFromIndia: - the presence of lack of other media outlets in the field doesn't make this one more suitable to survive AfD (though better to improve!). "Many upcoming mentions" is just WP:CRYSTALBALL - articles can't be kept just because they might gain notability at some stage in the future. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news outlet Sandalwood Cinema is a mentioned outlet mainly in Karnataka especially in Kannada language and needs some expansion. I strongly suggest to keep this article with some more expansion, that is being done from my side as well. RadheSlate (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to provide the sources from which an expansion could be written before that can be taken seriously. The ref you have just added to the article does not even mention "Sandalwood Cinema". SpinningSpark 12:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even the sources that do exist talk about its editors and not Sandalwood Cinema, which is inherited notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching is difficult because Sandalwood (cinema) is a frequently used name for Kannada cinema. Of the three refs in the article, ref#1 discusses the results of a poll organised by the website. It says next to nothing about the website itself. Ref#2 is to the website itself, so does not contribute to notability, and ref#3 does not mention it at all. SpinningSpark 12:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Ramskogler

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT Kleuske (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS, and a quick WP:BEFORE search (which I suspect the nom didn't do given that they nominated only 5 minutes after creation) found some good looking German language sources. Iffy★Chat -- 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? I read German and (even after a second BEFORE check) found nothing but a few passing mentions. If you have sources, cite them. Do not expect others to take your word for it. Kleuske (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (is that allowed?) Passes WP:NTENNIS because of participation in a WTA main draw (criterion 3). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NTennis#3: "Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments" (emphasis mine). Ramskogler was had a wildcard entry there (not the main draw), so she fails that criterion. Kleuske (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - While you're right that singles qualifying doesn't count for NTENNIS, the doubles main draw does (This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players). SNGs have bright lines to avoid the kind of arguments we're having right now. Iffy★Chat -- 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NTENNIS and Tennis Project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements for doubles players. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as this is an unsourced WP:BLP article/fails WP:GNG, which overrides sports notability guidelines. SportingFlyer talk 22:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail GNG but it does require sourcing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any English-language sources I can find on her. She may well pass WP:GNG in German, but the article currently on the page is not about her and only seems to mention her in the context of her playing partner. I'm happy to review other sources as they're found using a translator, though. SportingFlyer talk 05:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a quick Google search yields quite a good amount of non-English news sources. This article needs a bit of help, but not deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to draftify, as it definitely needs references to stay on mainspace. SportingFlyer talk 23:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTENNIS #3. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 Contemporary Artists A-Z

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

Fails book notability, as it lacks two in-depth sources. I removed a source for the independent that was trivial, but more importantly for a different book. I also removed 'sources' by Amazon, Goodreads and Book Depository, who are not RS. Search turned up nothing more than promotional blurbs and book seller sites. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. There is other coverage: [13]. Multiple book reviews: International Journal of Baudrillard Studies (from Bishop's University) [14] and ABC News [15]. This book is widely held by 317 libraries: [16]. This is a trilingual book (written in English, German and French) from Germany. Its German and French names are "100 zeitgenössische künstler" and "100 artistes contemporains". A search for German and French language sources is in order. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because this could be merged and redirected to Taschen or to the Art Now or Art at the Turn of the Millenium series, from which the artists were taken, or to Hans Werner Holzwarth. James500 (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources you give above are very poor. A Worldcat entry showing lots of libraries have it is of no use for notability, the ABC news list of coffee table books to buy is minor coverage, and the Baudrillard Journal, while it is good coverage. is in such a tiny fringe publication that i wonder if it matters at all. The lack of good sources that you've demonstrated is why I nominated it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are excellent. An academic journal published by a university is one of the best possible sources and one of the strongest possible forms of evidence of notability. It is a gold standard source. GNG is only interested in the quality of sources and does not have an "anti-monograph" clause. Being widely held by libraries indicates that the book is popular and therefore notable. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have one decent source, a Baudrillard journal from a small university. Show others. I can see you are deeplycommited tokeeping this coffee table book, this, so I won't reply further.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as there's no claim to notability. I't unremarkable that someone should review a coffee table art book, and, well, this is a coffee table art book, one of many published in a year. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Neither GNG nor NBOOK requires that coverage be of a form that is rare. That is simply not a valid argument. The presence of book reviews is one of the main and best tests for the notability of books. In any event, I am under the impression that the overwhelming vast majority of books have never been reviewed at all, so getting a book review actually is remarkable, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. (2) Likewise, the relevant notability guidelines do not require that a topic be rare either. So that is not a valid argument either. In any event, there is no evidence that "many" other coffee table art books have achieved the level of coverage or circulation that this one has, so there is no evidence that there are "many" others, even if that did matter, which it doesn't. James500 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but it does not change the fact that the subject lacks sources to establish notability. The examples you have given so far is very weak sourcing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability entirely obvious. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep because many of the artists mentioned in the book may themselves be notable. Reference books like this that contain information about notable artists and from major publishers should get an immediate pass. It would be helpful if the article listed the artists. I did a quick search and here are just a few of the notable artists: Jean-Michel Basquiat, Marlene Dumas, Damien Hirst, Mike Kelley (artist), Jeff Koons. That was the first five I looked and all had WP entries. Auldhouse (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP—WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS is what matters here. It is not the notability of the artists contained in the book that confers notability on the book. It is simply the fact that artists are contained in the book—notable or not—and it is from a major publisher and the book is stocked by many libraries and the book is published in multiple languages and Wikipedia is interested in covering art. Bus stop (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP—I am not basing notability on any notability of artists as might be contained in the book therefore it is completely baffling to me that you say "That completely ignores WP:NOTINHERITED". My argument above was that the non-notable artists as might be found in the book contribute as much to the notability of the book as the notable artists. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe—do we have policies on "coffee table art book[s]"? Wouldn't "art" and "artists" be subject areas Wikipedia tries to cover? The book is published by a major publisher, is held by many libraries, and published in English, German, and French. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two sentences in a list of coffee table books is not significant coverage. (For the art lovers in us all, there's "100 Contemporary Artists," a comprehensive study of contemporary art at the beginning of the 21st century. At 704 pages, it's nearly 12 pounds of art for your viewing pleasure.) Online stores like artbook.com are not reliable sources,m so that leaves only blackcube. That's not enough to meet the GNG. Per WP:NBOOK:

The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. ✗ Fail
The book has won a major literary award.✗ Fail
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. ✗ Fail
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. ✗ Fail
The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. ✗ Fail

Vexations (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The author or editor, Hans Werner Holzwarth, has written books on Jean-Michel Basquiat, Ai Weiwei, Darren Almond and Christopher Wool. Also they have written "Modern Art 1870-2000: Impressionism to Today" and a 4 volume set called "Art Now!" Perhaps the inapplicable number 5 is applicable. Given that we have articles on Abandoned footwear and Mike the Headless Chicken perhaps we can have articles on books about contemporary art or articles on galleries of contemporary art. But that is not a valid argument because wp:other stuff exists would invalidate that argument. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a stretch. Holzwarth is not so historically significant that you can invoke NBOOK#5. We don't even have an article about him. I can think of a few art critics: Anything written by Baudelaire is pretty much notable, or anything written by Diderot, or perhaps Guillaume Apollinaire. But not this author. Vexations (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire didn't write about the art produced from the mid-twentieth century onward, which might be called contemporary art. Bus stop (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, Bus stop. They're the art critics I could think of that are so notable that anything they write is also notable. I couldn't think of any critic of contemporary art from whom that would be true. I don't think that there are any. You've done nothing to establish that Holzwarth is even notable, let alone "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable". I gave you examples of people who do meet that criterion to give you an idea of what kind of people are covered by NBOOK#5. That they wrote about -their- contemporaries, not ours, is irrelevant. I meant to show you that there are such people, but that Holzwarth isn't one of them. Surely we can agree that the three I mentioned are much more "historically significant" than Holzwarth. Your proposal to apply criterion #5 is against established consensus. Meta: This part of the discussion should really be hatted.

There is no reason that I can think of that the patina of age should be a notability criteria. Flawed people lived 100 years ago and sharp people live today. Additionally the art of 100 years ago is different from the art of today. The fact that Hans Werner Holzwarth has written many books about contemporary art suggests that they may be "historically significant", but obviously of a more shallow "history" than Charles Baudelaire, Denis Diderot, and Guillaume Apollinaire. I don't think this part of the discussion should be hatted. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really wanted to save this article, and just bought the book from Amazon because it was highly reviewed and looks like a great gift for my art loving mother-in-law, but I just can't find any media coverage, besides the blurb from ABC that's in the article already. Fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die, but with a few major differences. That article has a Publisher's Weekly review, and the book is filled with reviews by notable critics. Also, over 700 album articles link to the 1001 Albums book - yet not one of the articles of artists featured in this book link to this article. I'll be getting the book tomorrow and will see if there are any reviews on the slipcovers, or anything else that might move the needle, but for now sadly this is a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update - I got the book - it's a hefty two volume set that's shrinkwrapped in a cardboard sleeve, but since it's a gift I can't take it out to review - so no change. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not seeing significant independent coverage in secondary sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first week was mostly "keep"; the second mostly "delete". I'm not comfortable closing as anything at the mo, so can we have more views?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the GNG, which demands detailed coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The first week not-voters did not provide such sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think James500's remark way up top is essentially correct. A scholarly reference and decent library holdings add up to a case for preserving the content. Merging to the publisher would be a viable way to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- XOR'easter, for my own edification, could you point to where Library holdings are stated as a notability criteria? Lots of libraries have hold copies of a particular cookbook or novel, but that does not necessarily mean a particular book is notable. For example, Worldcat says "Hand tool basics : woodworking tools & how to use them" is held by 144 libraries. If someone mentions it in a scholarly journal for a few sentences, does it become notable? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at library holdings might be legitimate to get a clue to importance/popularity but it does nothing to substantiate notability. The idea that deleting this somehow harms our coverage of art is nonsense. This is a book about art, it is not art itself. Our coverage of the substantive topic remains intact. There are many such books, not all of them are going to be notable. It would be better used as a reference to the artists' articles rather than as a basis for an article on itself. SpinningSpark 11:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Coulter, Gerry (January 2010). "Review Essay: The Conspiracy of Art (Illustrated)". International Journal of Baudrillard Studies. Bishop's University. Archived from the original on 2018-10-21. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
  The review notes:
  
  Hans Werner Holzwarth’s book: 100 Contemporary Artists, presents us with a vivid illustration (without the author intending one) of Baudrillard’s notion of a conspiracy in contemporary art. It is worth revisiting Baudrillard’s essay before examining this book more closely. Along with Holzwarth I also examine Anne Ellegood et. al., Vitamin 3-D: New Perspectives in Contemporary Sculpture ...
  ...
  In terms of representing artists who produce banality I think it fair to say that the book does a marvelous job (without of course, intending to) and this is ironically, its great strength. Among the more banal works included are Franz Ackermann’s post Warholian understanding of painting meets tourism (the real can be very punishing even to a painter of talent). Cai Guo-Qiang’s spectacle’s, George Condo’s caricatures, John Curran’s figures, [long list of artists and their works], each are left to stand in for art which has lost the desire for illusion. Everywhere the real punishes and obliterates an art that desires only it.
  ...
  ... Perhaps if Holzwarth et. al. were given more time and freedom by their editors, a more in-depth analysis of these artists (and others) who resist the conspiracy of art, might have produced the book readers deserve rather than a catalogue of trends. Critical judgment is out of vogue but it is still possible – the problem is, in the era of the mega-art book aimed at the most democratic cross section of consumers possible (what we also know to be the lowest common denominator), most of the books we meet concerning contemporary art in the new mega-bookstore are interested in fashion rather than analysis. ...
  ...
  Instead of any significant analysis or development of a critical position we are given a one paragraph long vague introduction to each artist, which often in a full blaze of conspiracy, self-reference the art world which has established these artists as its key trend makers. That said, given the state of affairs and the competition which Taschen faces, and for all of its problems, this book is a sincere effort to identify the leading trends. What is not engaged is the problem of seeking trends over depth.
2. Faujour, Mikaël (2011-07-22). "100 Contemporary Artists, de Taschen : un panorama de la création contemporaine" [100 Contemporary Artists, from Taschen: a Panorama of Contemporary Creation]. Tout La Culture (in French). Archived from the original on 2018-10-21. Retrieved 2018-10-21.
  http://toutelaculture.com/auteurs/^WebCite lists Yael Hirsch, a journalist, doctor of political science, and lecturer at Sciences Po as a co-editor. It also lists Amelie Blaustein Niddam, a journalist and doctor of history as a deputy editor. This demonstrates that Tout La Culture has editorial oversight.
  From Google Translate:
  In a box of 2 volumes and some 700 pages, 100 Contemporary Artists from Taschen publishes a selective panorama of the artists considered as major on the international scene of the last 20 years. The inevitable (Jeff Koons, Matthew Barney, Cindy Sherman, Takashi Murakami, Nan Goldin or Thomas Hirschhorn ...), neighboring with less known artists, some very exciting. The worst is next to the best, reflecting the immense diversity of approaches, themes and materials / mediums.
  ...
  Behind the flashy kitschy and industrialized kitsch of Jeff Koons or Takashi Murakami, other artists demonstrate such prodigious inanity that one remains amazed by the capacity for endorsement and justification. The texts are sometimes superbly laughable, for example when one of the authors speaks of "inverting the relationship sculpture / pedestal" for Franz West, or when another evokes a mysterious "thorny question of the relationship between sculpture and his pedestal " for Erwin Wurm ... Or again, this delicious passage:
  ...
  In short, the best and the worst are mixed together in this confused boiling of forms and words, which is difficult not to describe as that of our uncertain time, and which is also translated into politics. From this uncertainty and the preoccupations of the time, the plurality of the approaches outlined in 100 Contemporary Artists is fully recognizable. Sometimes real successes, real artistic achievements, sometimes the feeling that expanding the possibilities of art, by expanding it, leads to "works" that are in fact only the worst of lazy people renouncing the implementation of their ideas in an accomplished form, whether it was romantic, pictorial, photographic or even journalistic.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Contemporary Artists A-Z to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book passes Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria because it has received two significant reviews.
Cunard (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if GNG is met by the very low standard of two reviews as the multiple "sources", the last comment leaves out the part of GNG that says "notability is presumed to be met" rather than automaticlally met, and that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." We have no need of an article on a book that we can only find two equivocal reviews for. That a tiny journal and a minor French blog mentioned this book is not that a strong argument for keeping it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B. Pratt

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, minor passing mentions, quotations and sermons from the subject (the last two of which are primary sources). Furthermore, the article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Magazine - UK

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

Lacks notability as a magazine. Limited coverage and limited referencing by other RS Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability independent of the website.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health

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

Fails notability guidelines for organizations. My Google news search brings up no independent or reliable sources. Appears to be original research written by someone with a conflict of interest. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Crowell, Bill (April 2008). The artist & the colonel: The story of Mabel Killam Day and Frank Parker Day. one. Glen Margaret Publishing. p156

[1] Baluch, Muhammad Sardar Khan (1958). History of Baluch race and Baluchistan. Quetta. p. 244.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[2] Crowell, Bill (April 2008). The artist & the colonel: The story of Mabel Killam Day and Frank Parker Day. one. Glen Margaret Publishing. p156

[1]

[1]