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

The result was Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York Streets[edit]

New York Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Should be draftified. A single source, which the article's author says is not WP:RS because it gets other basic facts wrong, is not enough to base an article on. Found no other RS to supplement or further establish notability with GNG. A national arena league team does not have presumed notability per any SNG. There is WP:NODEADLINE - we can wait to have an article on this team until notability is more clearly established. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The press conference was this morning, a second article was just released here, meaning it now has multiple independent refs that may meet WP:GNG. I am not the author, but I published to keep the original author's contributions (because someone was bound to create it after the press conference, and I felt the proper attribution to the edit history should be preserved.). As to RS, the publisher of that article (New York Daily News) was there to show independent coverage. My comment about basic facts was they did not do their homework (stating a team in the league is in Columbus, Ohio, when it is actually in Columbus, Georgia) and is a pretty typical error for independent coverage (meaning, for once, this team was covered by a publisher that is not a blog). Otherwise I do not care if this is kept, drafted, or deleted. I was just trying to give proper creation to the editor before someone made a new page. Yosemiter (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Clearly fails WP:GNG through a before search (only the NYDN article seems like it would pass, MAYBE one from Newsday), and if it passes GNG it probably still fails NOTNEWS. That being said, the article likely will be notable in the near future. Let's incubate it. SportingFlyer talk 05:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. WP:TOOSOON at the moment, but could well pass WP:GNG in the near future. Keep the text, but get it out of mainspace for now. Narky Blert (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify currently doesn't meet requirements, but likely will in the future, so lets incubate it to allow for improvements until then --DannyS712 (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Pajeet 💩 00:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fedex Express Flight 1478[edit]

Fedex Express Flight 1478 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable aviation incident. Doesn't merit more than a aircraft/airport mention. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio from at least two pages at aviation-accidents.net and aviation-safety.net. Independent search yields a blip of mainstream media coverage when the accident happened. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete — Per above. Also entirely unsourced article on an unnotable event. The incident was described in an investigative report, but that is completely routine and not an indicator of notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Ybarra[edit]

Oscar Ybarra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:SCHOLAR, google search fails to return any notable results. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His Google Scholar profile shows enough citations for a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Society and of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, which may also be enough for #C3 depending on how selective they are. And Google News shows quite a few hits for his name and apparently relating to his research. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject clearly passes the first criterion of WP:NACADEMIC. The editing history of the article is certainly suspect on COI grounds, and the article definitely could be more encyclopedic, but for a notable subject these are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability requirements, but should be cleaned up --DannyS712 (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article sourcing is weak, but I think the large number of citations for his work makes a convincing argument for keeping the article. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Diplomacy[edit]

American Diplomacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by SPA after adding promotional stuff (also likely copyvio). PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The journal is abstracted and indexed in ProQuest Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, EBSCO databases, and Cengage/Gale. It is also in Library of Congress ISSN 1094-8120. Independently sourced and encyclopedia-based content, as noted above and edited by Randykitty, are in everyone's interest. On this basis, the proposal for deletion can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akebedeb (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Akebedeb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment None of the databases that you list are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals. And there is no information that is "independently sourced" or "encyclopedia-based", our only source is the journal itself. --Randykitty (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NJOURNALS is just an essay, but it fails it, and I couldn't find anything on WP:GNG either in terms of non-primary sources. SportingFlyer talk 04:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral fails a straightforward application of WP:NJOURNALS... but this seems more important than it appears from the article alone... Will need to look deeper.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have read the Wikipedia regulations and believe American Diplomacy meets the criteria for a notable journal in that the journal counts thousands of users and subscribers internationally (as demonstrated by Google Analytics). Other references would be to articles published in the journal vs. to the journal itself, as would generally be the case with scholarly journals. Grateful for any other guidance on this last point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RME 25 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"thousands of users and subscribers internationally (as demonstrated by Google Analytics)" This is irrelevant, especially in the case of open access journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:NJOURNALS per SportingFlyer. I notice both keeps are SPAs. Ifnord (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a suggestion of a disambiguation page, but I don't see any justification for that, as the term is not mentioned in either of the suggested target articles (except in one case as a redirect to this article) and in any case is not in common use in English in either meaning. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Job ticket[edit]

Job ticket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article Job ticket is about a German Pseudo-Anglicism for the phenomenon properly discussed under Free travel pass. Information about bus passes belong in that article. The only purpose of this is to highlight the German usage, but other examples of Pseudo-Anglicisms do not have their own articles - see for example Handy, which mentions the German usage only briefly as part of a disambig page. At some point in the history of the present article, the German connection was deleted, leaving the impression that this term is actually in use in the English-speaking world. As far as I can establish, it is not; and an eight-year-old request for citations has gone unanswered, which would suggest nobody else can find anything supporting the usage. I have reintroduced the German element, so that if we decide to keep it, it is at least clear what it is about. But I can't really see the point. I posted on talk page a week ago and didn't get an answer, which suggests nobody is maintaining the article. I propose deletion. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and Delete There are plenty of references in the German version, some of which seem to be primary sources, but others are secondary. Given that the term is used in German, not English (with this meaning), it would not be an appropriate English-language Wiktionary entry. It would seem possible that this meaning could be included in an article about the English meaning of the phrase, but as that doesn't exist, and in fact the only mention of the meaning I mainly use is at the top of this page ("A "job ticket" may also be a synonym for a work order.") that wouldn't be possible. I don't know if there are guidelines on which English-language terms used in other languages with a different meaning to include in the English Wikipedia, but it seems to me likely that anyone encountering it in a German-language context would think to look for it in German-language references, and it would only be useful in the English Wikipedia if someone came across it in an English-language context, which seems unlikely. So I would agree with deleting it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Or disambig Although I proposed deletion, I could also imagine this being a disambig pointing to both work order and Free travel pass, provided we are allowed to stress that the latter is only German usage. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation would work well.

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Purple squirrel (animal)[edit]

Purple squirrel (animal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Compare with just-concluded AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Blue squirrel. The earlier AfD discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Purple squirrel determined that the human resources sense of the term should be kept and split off this list of anecdotes about possibly dyed or otherwise anomalous squirrels. While some of the sources might be considered reliable, they do little to establish existence of a natural purple squirrel. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NPR is the only source I would consider reliable, the BuzzFeed article has been partially copied and pasted from Accuweather AND BuzzFeed added this disclaimer to the article "This post has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone create a post."

I realize the article is not about the scientific idea that there is a purple squirrel, but about a news article talking about purple squirrel sightings. As another editor has pointed out news stories are not necessarily meant to be encyclopedia articles. Aurornisxui (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is really "sightings of artificially dyed squirrels". These are all primary sources as well. If there's scholarly work on what causes animals to be dyed strange colors, that might be a different article with a different title, different content, and different references. In other words, nothing to keep here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTNEWS. A list of trivial events, none individually or as a whole long-lasting or significant. Hoping someone writes an article on the history of dyeing animals though. Closest thing I could find was painted fish. Humans are odd creatures. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• of course there is also the definitiveWhy Paint Cats: The Ethics of Feline Aesthetics along with the equally importantDancing With Cats, and Why Cats Paint: A Theory of Feline Aesthetics. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is also a consensus that the articles needs to be edited for neutrality. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rubio[edit]

Jennifer Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional. References more about the company. Created by a blocked user. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Korey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I would like to nominate this page for deletion, with the discussion. Both pages were created by a blocked user. Both have been sitting too long for G5. This is also promotional. Terrible references. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 19:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on Rubio, Weak Keep on Korey - Granted these may be promotional and/or paid, but the chief standard to follow in these discussions is WP:NOTABILITY. These two women are chief executives of what's a clearly notable business. Korey seems to have some direct coverage in reasonably high-quality RS, and both women appear to have slew of mentions in RS. Frankly I think they may pass the bar for WP:GNG. Scope is right that these articles clearly have issues, but I'm not sure deletion is the solution. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both Both articles include the requisite reliable and verifiable references supporting the claim of notability for both individuals as founders of Away, one of the largest such startups founded by women. Alansohn (talk) 22:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources certainly check out but the article as a whole needs cleanup as it's promotional in tone. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks as though it is verging towards keep for both of them. I will give it another day, and if somebody turns up without being canvanssed, I'll withdraw it, for keep. scope_creep^Talk 08:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep on both. I think there is enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability for both. There are quite a few non-independent sources too, which could perhaps be removed to make it clearer that they meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Eudy[edit]

Frank Eudy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Just another nobody passing through the Big Brother mill whose only shred of notability comes from his father. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. UninvitedCompany 22:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no reliable secondary coverage in sources in the article or in the Google search, making him fail both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Big Brother does not grant him notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Trancossi[edit]

Michele Trancossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potentially fails WP:NPROF. Google Scholar results not that good. scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can only find one mention in reasonable RS. NickCT (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article sounds impressive however the lack of online sources really doesn't help the cause here. His name doesn't pop up in New Scientist search results what so ever and that raises a red flag for me because any notable inventor or scientist normally has an article or two. Govvy (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no significant coverage from third-party sources that I have found. Based upon the original author's username and userpage, this appears to be WP:SPIP. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This looks like an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the references given are independent and my search didn't find coverage that I believe meets WP:GNG. The fact it appears to be an autobiography is not good, but that alone is not grounds for deletion. I don't see evidence that WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Massey Welsh[edit]

Jack Massey Welsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. PROD removed by article creator with no rationale given, but they don't meet WP:NWEB or WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. wumbolo ^^^ 17:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Weak attempt at promotion of another non-notable YouTuber with no third-party coverage. In addition to removing PROD, article creator uploaded infobox image (since removed) violating Wikipedia image use policy. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable source coverage to demonstrate any sort of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only found [third party source] which included only a passing mention.Noahhoward (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Seems like possible WP:AUTOBIO. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Appears to be a PR attempt. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails all notability guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)[edit]

J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this article seven years ago, so here I am again! Jackson fails to meet WP:CRIN as none of his matches for London, the Thursday Club, or Leicester are rated as first-class. It's unlikely retrospective first-class status will be given to these matches. This leaves us with Jackson. Just his first initial and surname are known, not really enough to go on for an article. StickyWicket (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - with the lack of biographical information we have there is no prospect of ever being able to develop a full biography so fail any biographical notability potential. We're totally reliant on Haygarth's inclusion of a scorecard in his arbitrary selection of matches to support any inclusion and the matches he played in are clearly never going to be first-class - the article itself is almost deliberately misleading in its claim that they were. Should research ever determine who J Jackson was it would be no problem at all to recreate the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. The sports specific guidelines are predicated on the assumption that sources exist for players above a certain level (e.g. various sport rags) - however they are not a good fit for players 200+ years ago. In this case - we don't have sources. Heck - we don't even have a first name. Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FISCO BCOS[edit]

FISCO BCOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable blockchain implementation in a fin-tech environment. One of many the exact same. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. PRNewswire is a press release. scope_creep^Talk 16:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May I know what should I do to avoid the page from being deleted ? should it be enough if I fill in with more contents at the page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunda xu (talk • contribs) 06:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Appleton, Wisconsin)[edit]

All Saints Episcopal Church (Appleton, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:MILL parish church. Just because it is old does not mean it is notable, as a WP:BEFORE search found no significant coverage. Quite possibly contains original research due to the lack of inline citations, and the bottom part of the page reads like an advertisement. Creator of the page is possibly a WP:COI. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the page creator was part of WikiProject Anglicanism and created 4 pages during a very brief editing career. The page when created was succinct. A later editor added large swaths of material.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Little to no third party coverage outside of archive linked cited in article. Noahhoward (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY I added a few sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Most American churches in handsome old buildings are notable and can be sourced. According to the Boston Globe, Nathan Pusey had a role in pushing the theological posture of this congregation when he was a member during his term as President of Lawrence University. The dramatic Norman tower on the 1905 building (I've posted a photo request on talk) was designed by Shepley, Rutan and Coolidge; it is an homage to/echo of the Norman tower at All Saints Church in Appleton-le-Street (where the Norman tower is the real deal.) Not saying that this is an excellent page, just that I do think that there is enough here to keep. Note that extensive text on page appears to be drawn from a parish history that is cited, just not cite inline. The other sources are INDEPENDENT. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliably sourced this church's Tiffany window. That should end any doubt about notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of multiple reliable sources references Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory's additional information and sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rising Son[edit]

The Rising Son (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable TV show. I am unable to find any significant secondary reliable source coverage about this show, which makes it fail WP:GNG. Thus it also fails WP:TVSERIES In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. So the fact it airs on a notable network does not grant it notability per WP:NOTINHERITED. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I have seen this kind of article before. This series lasted less than a month on the air; according to WP:TVSHOW, "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage." Also of note is that "aside from being listed on the Adult Swim schedule [sic] The Rising Son was not advertised or even mentioned in the network's TV scheduling announcements." Go figure. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not a real TV series just four 11 minute segments of a video combination show, fails WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Page (MCC cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. Very limited biographical information from CricketArchive or Haygarth - essentially we know a surname existed on two scorecards and nothing else - it's not even certain that the same person played in both matches. Neither match was considered to be a first-class cricket match, despite the article's claims, and neither were played by a significant team - the MCC side was actually a Hertfordshire and MCC side; in the other match Page played for Hertfordshire; both matches were played against Hornchurch. Both matches were played over 2-days and so have no hope of ever being retrospectively classified as first-class. If there were more biographical information then it might be possible to argue that Page might be a suitable topic for a biographical article. The previous AfD, from 2008, relied upon the two matches having been first-class "aka major cricket matches". There is no evidence to suggest that either match has ever been classified as such. PROD quite rightly declined by Liz (talk · contribs) due to the previous AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, not played in a FC match. And fails WP:BASIC as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the concerns raised by BST about the matches not being first-class, therefore failing WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete might be worth including in a list of people who made 1st class cricket match appearances in 1791, but not worth having a stand alone article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Borg (scientist)[edit]

Joseph Borg (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPROF. h-index is 14. Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom: Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Does fails WP:NPROF. GenuineArt (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There appear to be three different Maltese Joseph Borgs with Google Scholar profiles: Joseph A Borg (marine biologist), Joseph Borg (haematologist), and John Joseph Borg (pharmacologist?). I think we want the middle one, the haematologist. His citation record is pretty good, but not quite enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 purely on the basis of its numbers, and I don't see anything else. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Xxanthippe, GenuineArt, David Eppstein A comment has been left on the talk page of the article positing a notability criteria by the editor. Please read it, and see what you think. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 19:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special pleading does not alter my opinion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I think there's a case to be made for increased coverage of academics from underdeveloped parts of the world where population is large but access to higher education is limited, even in cases where the standards for being a top academic in those countries are lower than they might be in the developed world. I'm not convinced that Malta is one of those places. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Jewell[edit]

Roy Jewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable heads of non-notable companies. The one company he formerly headed has an article of questionable notability. A quick search couldn't turn up anything other than the man's various SNS accounts. Sources already in the article aren't nothing more than minor mentions of his companies. Fails WP:PERSON FiendYT ★ 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) FiendYT ★ 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another in a long line of overly promotional articles on non-notable businessmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Austrian Academy of Sciences. Note: this may end up being a selective merge. There's a suggestion that the lead and "History and significance" sections are the best bits for merging, but I'll leave that up to whoever does the actual merge. The key point is to only merge material which is adequately sourced.

None of the people who argued for a merge sounded 100% sure that Austrian Academy of Sciences was the best marge target. If a better target emerges, please discuss on the talk pages and ping the discussants from this AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Worlds[edit]

Medieval Worlds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator with reason "This journal is indexed in databases which only accept high quality peer-reviewed publications and which have strict admission criteria to ensure this (ERIH Plus, DOAJ). A number of the most distinguished scholars in the field of Medieval Studies have already published articles in this journal and the journal‘s contribution to the scholarly discussion is widely recognised: https://merovingianworld.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/open-access-the-global-eminent-life". However, none of the databases listed are selective in the sense of WP:NJournals (e.g., DOAJ is only "selective" in the sense that it does not include predatory journals). That some of the authors are notable is irrelevant (WP:NOTINHERITED). The link provided is to a WordPress blog by a person who has published in this journal. The article has a deceptively long list of "references", most of which are to the journal itself and the rest are the above-mentioned blog and non-selective indexing services. Journal was started in 2015, so at best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge? I agree this isn't notable, but... Austrian Academy of Sciences might be a merge target. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The references to the journal itself are only used to verify the issue themes mentioned, the references to the indexing services are only used to verify that the journal is indeed indexed in these databases. The references in the main text, however, which gives "routine, uncontroversial details of a journal" are from "official institutional and professional sources" (as demanded by WP:NCriteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals). Namely 1) a reference to the publishing institute to verify the statement of ownership, 2) one reference to the Austrian Research Funding Agency (FWF), which reviewed and monitored the journal in its first three publishing years, to verify the scope of the journal, 3) two references to the Austrian Research Funding Agency to verify the statement that the journal was launched with initial funding of said agency, 4) a reference to a professional journal dedicated to news and information about Medieval Studies to verify the statement when the journal was launched. Kunstförderer^(T) 12:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That may all be true, but nothing of that is evidence of notability, either by meeting WP:NJournals or by meeting WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Randykitty said, the issue here is not WP:V, but rather WP:N. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The journal may meet these criteria for notability from WP:JOURNALCRIT:

• Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
• Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.

Re criterion 1, I note that:

• The journal is cited as an example of historiographically significant attempts to challenge chronological and geographical boundaries in historical study: Stuart Airlie, Maud Anne Bracke and Rosemary Elliot, 'Editorial', Gender & History, 28 (2016), 275-82 (p. 281, fn. 19) doi:10.1111/1468-0424.12205.
• The journal is cited as evidence that 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale has become a hot topic in Medieval Studies': Walter Pohl, 'Introduction: Meanings of Community in Medieval Eurasia', in Meanings of Community across Medieval Eurasia: Comparative Approaches, ed. by Eirik Hovden, Christina Lutter and Walter Pohl (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 1-23 (pp. 1-2); https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctt1w76w6c.5.
• Issue 4 is reviewed in Alfons Labisch, 'Molecular Historiography–neue Gegenstände und neue Methoden einer neuen Geschichtsschreibung?', NTM: Zeitschrift Für Geschichte Der Wissenschaften, Technik Und Medizin, 26(3), 351–366; doi:10.1007/s00048-018-0198-7.
• The journal is presented as evidence that 'there are new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500': Catherine Holmes and Naomi Standen, 'Introduction: Towards a Global Middle Ages', Past & Present, 238, Issue suppl. 13 (1 November 2018), 1–44, doi:10.1093/pastj/gty030.

Given how seldom journals are the subject of academic commentary per se, this isn't a bad set of citations to my mind.

Re criterion 2, I looked up some of the journal's early articles on Google Scholar and several have 4-6 citations; that may not sound like much in some fields, but in history, that's good going. I did some similar searches of articles from Past & Present from the same year and they aren't cited much more frequently, and Past & Present is certainly a major journal. Alarichall (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Past & Present is also indexed in several selective database, and has a history of 70+ years. This is a relatively new journal, indexed nowhere selective. Quite likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but see also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, @Headbomb: Thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to suggest that this journal is notable for the same reasons as Past & Present. I was just trying to get a benchmark for what 'frequently cited' looks like in this journal's field, in relation to notability criterion 2. I still think it meets the stated criteria. The citations I gathered for criterion 1 suggest that the foundation of the journal is a singificant step in a new historiographical development in medieval studies, so that particular claim to notability doesn't have much to do with the journal's longevity. I'll try popping a bit more prose into the entry to spell out how this might work. Alarichall (talk) 10:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added the following to the article, hopefully helping explain how the article meets Criterion 1 (and also generally widening the source-base of the article):

Scholarly commentators have found the journal noteworthy for its programmatic efforts to change the parameters of Medieval Studies, making the field less Eurocentric and attempting to integrate it into comparative history, world history, and interdisciplinary history-writing.^[1] They noted that it was promoting a new trend for 'wide-ranging comparison on a Eurasian scale'^[2] and numbered it among 'new and lively initiatives which speak either directly or indirectly to the notion of a global history for the millennium before 1500'.^[3] The journal's push for a new interdisciplinarity was particularly noted in a review of its fourth issue, on the historiographical consequences of archaeogenetic research.^[4]

Alarichall (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate your efforts, but I am afraid that none of the sources that you list show real notability. At least one is not independent (Pohl is one of the editors) and all are in fact what we call "in-passing mentions". None is an in-depth analysis of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, though frankly I don't see that the encyclopaedia stands to gain much from deleting this article (and others like it) either. So what's your objection re criterion 2? The journal is frequently cited by reliable sources. Ta! Alarichall (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re #2: a smathering of citations is to be expected for any journal and is in and of itself not an indication of notability. This kind of citation data would not even be enough to make a single academic notable, let alone a whole journal. As for what the encyclopedia gains, that's not really a matter to be discussed here. Suffice it to say that that argument goes for any article not meeting our notability requirements (I could write an article about my cleaning lady, what's the harm for leaving that float around...) More seriously, there are journals that really should not be listed anywhere. To keep those out, we need clear and objective inclusion criteria. Which we then have to apply to all journals, to avoid a situation where editors like us have to make a subjective judgment about whether or not a particular journal is worthy of inclusion or not. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think the sourcing is a bit shy of establishing stand-alone notability, but as Headbomb noted above, Austrian Academy of Sciences is a viable merge target. The lead and the "History and significance" section could be slotted in there, making a new section called "Publications". XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination, preferably to the article on Austrian Academy of Sciences, whatever is adequately sourced. A case of zu früh. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. Most content seems to have already been merged there. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Middlemas[edit]

Emily Middlemas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. 4th place xfactor finish does not make one notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I take full responsibility as the creator of the article that it should be turned into a redirection to her section on the series 13 list. Delete the page lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesimnett (talk • contribs) 23:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a little digging. She was in a band called Loud N Proud. She is also a song writer for herself. She has released songs in 2017 and 2018.SWP13 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SWP13: Can you explain how she passes WP:MUSICBIO? — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the main contributor of Emily Middlemas, I propose that the page should be kept. According to WP:MUSICBIO, section 1, Middlemas passes. She has been featured in several online and print publications. Also, section 12 is passed in some respects. She was one of the finalists on The X Factor; that in itself is an achievement. — Joesimnett (talk) 17;43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Criterion 12 would apply if there had been a TV show or radio programme about Emily Middlemas. For The X Factor, number 9 applies. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 17:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AnemoneProjectors: Criterion 4, however, also applies to Middlemas, as she has gone on two national tours; The X Factor Live Tour (2017) and The Memory Lane Tour (2018). — Joesimnett (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criterion 4 says "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" not "has gone on tour". The X Factor Live Tour isn't her own tour, it's a part of The X Factor that the majority of finalists are invited to each year so doesn't give her additional notability outside of The X Factor. I Googled the other tour and got only 98 results, most of which are not independent reliable sources. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 19:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I agree that the proper place on wikipedia for this subject is on the List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Emily Middlemas. Outside of her involvement with that show/tour, there simply aren't enough examples of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Coverage that does exist in reliable sources are routine coverage accorded to any contestant who made the finals. The keep arguments above fall under WP:EXIST. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has significant coverage in muktiple national newspapers which is not routine coverage as appearing repeatedly in one of the top five most popular shows in the UK and making the finals is not routine for a singer. There is also coverage in rs of her singles so it is more than WP:BLP1E Atlantic306 (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is routine coverage for any X Factor contestant. — 🌼📽️AnemoneProjectors💬 18:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, this is absolutely routine coverage for any contestant and she does not otherwise pass WP:NMUSIC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Achchhe Din[edit]

Achchhe Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable short film, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It's described as a runner up in a competition for amateur local filmmakers under the age of 25. Flooded with them hundreds 12:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFILM & article seems like promotional. Azkord (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NFILM Spiderone 16:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L V Muralikrishna Reddy[edit]

L V Muralikrishna Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems like a resume, Fails WP:GNG.I couldn't find reliable "independent" sources other than the pages of the organizations he is affiliated with.

He has also been listed on google scholar, although only 2 of his papers were cited by others, one was cited 34 times, the second one once. The article's original creator was blocked indefinitely for having a promotional username, and the edits and the edit comments on the page seem to indicate COI for multiple editors. Daiyusha (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Very promotional, relies on primary sources, fails WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no real independent coverage, almost all the edits on the article are a sock farm promoting the subject of the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Me (TV series)[edit]

Ask Me (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable TV series, fails WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:TVSERIES. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I can't find anything reliable about the topic at all. Flooded with them hundreds 12:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet more non-notable kid's filler where a commercial break would go on a regular network. Nate • (chatter) 14:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, television shows are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist(ed) — the inclusion test for television shows requires showing some evidence of reliable source coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surojit Chatterjee[edit]

Surojit Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable musician whose page is promotional in nature Zubin12 (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Part of the problem with combing through sources is that the subject shares his name with a Google executive. The subject does have an entry at AllMusic, but it is empty, and the linked album has no review and is a compilation work. The sources from the article that I could see, [1] [2] [3], are enough to confer WP:GNG. If the article needs a rewrite to remove puffery and promotion, that's a separate issue, but deleting the article is not a necessary goal to achieve that end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Concur with Walter that it meets WP:GNG. Here's another significant mention in an RS: 1. Cesdeva ^(talk) 14:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although the article is promotional, the subject is notable Spiderone 09:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eilean (yacht)[edit]

Eilean (yacht) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only notable because of one pop video, non notable. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep... there is fairly extensive coverage in more than one reliable source (especially the WSJ article). I think it boaderline, but it is on the notable side of the line. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV in multiple RSs. I've had my differences with Steve but I think he's ultimately an even-handed and honest type. This is certainly a borderline case and I can see how reasonable people might differ on it. My rationale for keeping is ultimately from the nomination itself - if you state "only notable for X, otherwise not notable", well, then it must be notable, if only for that one thing. WP:1E doesn't apply as this is not a biographical article. There's no other obvious merge/redirect target so the information appears to be in the right place. FOARP (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has been noted in RS for more than "just being in a pop video". Passes GNG. - wolf 10:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stupid nomination. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Smellie (geologist)[edit]

William Smellie (geologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 11:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does Wikipedia have any policies on how soon an article can be renominate for AfD? It was only 3 days ago that it was first nominated, on the spurious rationale that it was a hoax .... now here we are again. At least we are given a guideline this time, though no explanation for why it fails it .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  RebeccaGreen, I fail to see why another AfD, days back, on a frivolous ground shall be grounds to debar this AfD on an entirely different locus. Give me an explanation as to how he passes either. ∯WBG^converse 15:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia appears to have no policy about it, of course it doesn't debar it. Personally, I think there should be a policy limiting the number and timing of AfDs, given the time it takes to assess them adequately and respond. I would prefer not to have had the frivolous nomination either, but again, although WP:BEFORE is expected, there's no process to ensure that a nominator has done it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. On what basis does an FRSE fail WP:NACADEMIC? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nom has failed to provide a delete rationale that addresses the keep decision arrived at just days ago, particularly the sources identified in it. My personal view is that delete proposals without at least basic evidence of having done WP:BEFORE (it can be as little as "I did WP:BEFORE and found nothing") and which do not provide a basic argument for deletion ("Fails *Insert policy here*" is not enough - you must say how unless it's very obvious) should be strongly discouraged. There is far too much "I want this article gone, please delete it for me"-style AfDing at the moment. FOARP (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Smellie was the curator of the Hunterian Museum and Art Gallery, a major Natural History museum. He's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that page template is not properly templated, it is NOT linking through to this page. Instead of fixing the template, I recommend that the next editor coming to the page close it as SPEEDY. I have added some sources to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC. Probably not a true speedy keep candidate, but the forecast calls for WP:SNOW. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norbornene-mediated meta-C-H activation[edit]

Norbornene-mediated meta-C-H activation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

reason 1) completely based on primary literature 2) the creator has a massive conflict of interest as this is their research (declared personally in an edit on Jin-Quan Yu reason 3) The contents can be and should be included here instead Norbornene EvilxFish (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A puffed up article on an ultra narrow topic organized as a device to highlight an ambitious professor by his obedient, admiring (syncophantic) student. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not-yet-sufficiently notable on its own variant of well-known other notable topics. Alternate merge target would be Carbon–hydrogen bond activation. DMacks (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikiversity where narrow and original topics are welcomed. It is probably excessive to merge it to norbornene. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this appropriate given the COI of the main author? EvilxFish (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gesudaraz I[edit]

Gesudaraz I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Similar to Syed Soleman Shah, which was deleted as it appeared to be a hoax. This article is also suspected of being a hoax. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#Possible hoax on Syed Soleman Shah also. IWI (chat) 11:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also suspected hoaxes from the same author.

Syed Adam Banuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Ali ibn Ismail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Jafar al-Qa’im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Muhammad Masood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ali ibn Ismail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Muhammad Tayyab Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sheikh Isa Mashwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Muhammad Ahmad Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Faateh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Syed Qaaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IWI (chat) 11:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also nominating this article:

Mashwanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IWI (chat) 19:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as hoaxes Spiderone 21:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment IWI asked me to check the sources for this article. Most of them are not live links, but of the ones that are, this is what I found:

• Ref 2 is in Farsi and the file doesn’t support ‘find in page’.
• Ref 8 I can’t get to open.
• Ref 9 is in English and is a proper google book link, so we can see it does support the content of the article. There at least was a person of this name and the bare bones of the article are based in fact.
• Ref 11 is in English but does not support the content of the article
• Ref 18 says it’s in Arabic but it isn’t - it appears to be Farsi. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.
• Ref 21 I can’t get the link to open.
• Ref 22 is to an archived book in Arabic. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.
• Ref 23 is to an archived book in Farsi. I ran a text search on گیسو دراز and came up with nothing.

I also checked the refs for Syed Adam Banuri and found that:

• Ref 1 does refer to Sheikh Adam Banuri but does not mention the dates contained in the article
• Ref 2 also refers to Banuri (so he definitely existed) but provides the Hijri date for his death of 1053 (ie 1643) and says nothing of his birth date. This ref supports the text in the article giving his death as in 1643 in Medina, but the birth date is unsourced and impossible.
• Ref 3 again clearly indicates that the historical person existed.
• Ref 4 is a snippet view with material not related to the part of the article it allegedly supports.
• Ref 6 supports the text
• Ref 7 supports the text
• Ref 11 refers to Banuri but does not mention Shah Jihan sending him on the Hajj
• Ref 12 is in Urdu so I can’t read it
• Ref 13 is in some dodgy file format I’m not opening
• Ref 14 repeats his date of death but does not support his place of burial.

Mccapra (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for Syed Qaaf - one is dead and the other does not seem to mention syed Qaaf, though the text doesn’t render properly in some sections so it’s possible there’s a ref in there I can’t see. Mccapra (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra: Just so you know, you mentioned doing text searches in some scanned books which aren't possible to search in (they're just a bundle of photographs, as far as the computer is concerned), so the search returning no results doesn't indicate one way or another whether the subject is mentioned in the book. (That said, it would be silly to expect anyone to hunt through an entire book by hand for a mention of the subject, so these refs without page numbers are kind of useless...) —((u|Goldenshimmer))｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes thanks I realise this. In fact though all but one of the sources I checked (See above) did support ‘find in page’ so I can be certain the key term was missing. Mccapra (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cool :) Thanks for taking the time to check them by the way Mccapra! —((u|Goldenshimmer))｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 01:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Simply fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per the above, with many thanks to Mccapra for carrying out all this verification. Fish+Karate 09:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’m happy to do this whenever needed. Mccapra (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per Mccapra. Catrìona (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all unless someone can find some better sources to demonstrate they meet WP:V. PohranicniStraze (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gope boards. Sandstein 14:41, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gope (Papua)[edit]

Gope (Papua) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are currently no references in this page. I don't think it's verifiable unless references are provided. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google books comes up with quite a few hits: this in particular looks pretty useful. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Merge with Gope boards - good spot, didn't see that, no point having two article for the same thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or just redirect to exiting page Gope boards. Noahhoward (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Gope boards, though I'm not sure which name would be most useful. This article has some information which Gope boards does not (the name Kwoi); Gope boards is longer than this one, and has more info overall. Neither has any references, but the one found by Noahhoward looks excellent, and no doubt there are others. (And as for the AfD rationale - that is exactly what WP:BEFORE is for. AfD is not cleanup!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient sources exist to sustain an article. Prefer to merge with Gope boards or a more inclusive term that also covers Titi ebiha and Kwoi perhaps Spirit board (currently a redirect to Ouia board). Vexations (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Gope boards as a functional WP:ATD-M. Note that sources were added to the article after it was nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus that ongoing notability was established (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nsofwa Petronella Sampa[edit]

Nsofwa Petronella Sampa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable activist nothing significant from the references provided. PK YellowWisdom (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have edited the article to bring her education and career more up to date. I have included a couple more references, one from the US Embassy in Zambia, which do not add much more to the extensive coverage in the 3 sources that had already been included. As those 3 articles were entirely about the subject, date from 2014-2018, are from two independent sources and 3 different journalists, I believe that she does meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. As she is young, and working with young people, much of her activism is through sources which Wikipedia does not consider reliable (eg Facebook) - however, she has received significant coverage from mainstream media. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For now, per RebeccaGreen. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage over time means she passes GNG. I also deorphaned the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article references several mainstream media articles directly about the subject. Notability was solidly proven even at the time of nomination, the nomination has no validity. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nandamuri Suhasini[edit]

Nandamuri Suhasini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL as yet to win any major election or hold any major office. All the coverage she has is about her being related to some notable figures or her being one of many candidates at recent election. Notability can not be inherited. This link verifies that she did not win the election that this article significantly talks about. Hitro talk 11:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability is not inherited, and she fails WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer talk 08:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with SportingFlyer, notability is not inherited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatcha (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a defeated candidate for public office. When 85% of more of the article is on who her notable family members were, it is a clear sign the subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RapReviews[edit]

RapReviews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Website does not appear notable and the article for it does not establish its notability. Koyyo (talk) 10:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim to notability under WP:NWEB. Ifnord (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedAwning Group[edit]

RedAwning Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Coverage is either in passing, or comes from press releases and their reprints/rewrites/WP:ROUTINE start up news. Yet another WP:CORPSPAM created by an undisclosed paid for editor. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found -- what comes up is passing mentions, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Moving to draft for improvement such as proving notability with extra references to significant coverage in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fay McAlpine[edit]

Fay McAlpine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Fails WP:PROF. As the artist, she also seems to fail WP:CREATIVE - no awards, and very limited coverage - not seeing anything beyond what's in the article, and the only possibly in-depth article on her ([4]) is paywalled and I cannot access it (I am also not even sure it is in-depth at all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Her stamp designs are held in the national museum; she is a judge for a national award; these seem to satisfy notability. PamD 13:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the stamps there because of who is the artist or because the Museum collects all stamps? If the latter, it's like saying that having a book in a national library is sufficient for notability - but in fact national libraries have a duty to collect a copy of each book printed. Being a part of the most inclusive collection is a pretty low bar. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the stamps are in the museum is indicative of the importance of stamp design so that having designed those stamps is indicative of notability. PamD 19:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:TOOSOON Article does not meet WP:Creative. While she has stamps on exhibition, the museum looks like it has a sizeable collection of them. The article Great New Zealand designers you've never heard of is not available (PressReader which is where the link takes you has 0 results for the article. Also no results for an online search, no results searching within the magazine.) She is a judge at a media awards, but not a winner. Aurornisxui (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one museum is not "several museums", as specified in WP:ARTIST. SIGCOV was not found in a search. GNG fail.

ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep When I open the link to the article 'Great New Zealand designers you've never heard of', I see in Press Reader the title of the article, date, author and journal (North & South), a Locked icon (ie the whole article is not shown), and the beginning of the section about Fay McAlpine, "A Wellington graphic designer whose passion for typography has influenced generations of y....". The complete article is not freely available, but the section on the subject of this Wikipedia article certainly exists, and even that fragment suggests that it goes towards meeting WP:CREATIVE #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". If this article is not kept, I would suggest Draftify - it is a very new article, which seems to have been created in mainspace by a new Wikipedian, who may well have access to sources which could substantiate the claims of notability. Please do not bite the newcomers RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with draftyfing (sp? :)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree about draftifying. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, agree, as the article stands McAlpine doesnt appear to quite meet notability, a gsearch brings up other info like joint designer of publications, 2014 joint tutor of the year awarded by International Society of Typographic Designers, and a few pikkies but stronger sources would be helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as the article is brand new, maybe just needs work. Note the editor is also very new, just started editing last week and all of her articles have been challenged. Let's not bite the newbies. Got here from list of women-related AfD. valereee (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify to give page creator time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify seems like a good choice, subject has won several awards and there are enough references to show some degree of notability. With additional references, I think she'd pass WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton International Preschool[edit]

Hampton International Preschool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable preschool. Redirection to the city of existence has been contested. WP:PROMO applies too. Not able to find anything substantial enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. High schools are usually notable (because there's enough WP:RS coverage to get them through WP:GNG), middle and junior schools rarely are, and kindergartens almost never. This isn't one of the exceptions. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Narky Blert (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would have to see some pretty substantial coverage to find a preschool notable. Ifnord (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the listed third-party sources cover the subject in-depth, and I couldn't identify any. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MealEnders[edit]

MealEnders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost totally unknown & unsuccessful alt med company -- the content is promotional, and does not show notability. The editor(s) appear to be undeclared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, clearly advertising created by an undisclosed paid editor. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simply a promotional article. Delete as per WP:TNT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with DGG. There is no significant coverage here, being on Shark Tank doesn't make a company notable. shoy (reactions) 13:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all coverage of this product seems to be in relation to the show Shark Tank, with almost nothing significant outside of it. --Jayron32 14:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only evidence for the product is one clinical trial without a placebo control. Utter garbage. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a promotional article, with a very false balance of unreliable sources. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am the original author of this article, I've requested that this article be deleted multiple times and it keeps getting reversed.LTMajorPayne (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I rescued this article because I thought it might be salvagable. I did the research and came up empty handed. Sorry to waste anyone's time.Luke Kindred (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IGLOO Software[edit]

IGLOO Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article seems to be fairly promotional and has a COI issue with one of the main editors. When searching up the company, I was met with a plethora of press releases and a few minor mentions here and there. Fails WP:ORG FiendYT ★ 06:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Garden variety WP:CORPSPAM that has only in passing/press-release type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DWYK[edit]

DWYK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Probable hoax. No evidence that this station exists. It is not listed the 2018 list of FM stations by the NTC. That list also does not identify any FM station located in the province of Bataan (Region 3). Bluemask (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: A PROD was declined in 2016[5]. --Bluemask (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Radio stations do sometimes go out of business or change their call signs, so it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the station existed in the past even if it doesn't still exist now — but we have seen hoax articles created about radio stations that never really existed at all, as well as stations that got license approvals on paper but never actually launched before their approvals expired and thus never actually broadcast at all. So we don't simply assume that a radio station passes WP:NMEDIA in the absence of adequate verification in reliable sources — the inclusion test for a radio station is not satisfied just because the article text says so, but requires reliable sources to properly support that the station actually meets the notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a likely hoax. I don't see it on the 2011 list either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No references in the article, no online references that I can find. Ifnord (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The "keep" !votes are not very persuasive. In addition, this AfD suffered from a lack of participation, so no prejudice to nominating this again in a few months, if improvement is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoco Technologies[edit]

Yoco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources are a mix of affiliated, routine coverage, and rehash of press releases. A WP:BEFORE search threw the same coverage Dom from Paris (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am the author of the article, there is a significant coverage and independent sources in Google News, when we look with the keyword "Yoco" Yoco in Google News Regards, MathieuPaul1977 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathieuPaul1977 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i will move the article from "Yoco Technologies" to "Yoco" since it the more used name in internet. Regards, MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added more references (ie Forbes), they are many other independent sources talking about Yoco in News. MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Nnot many articles in wikipedia of African fintech, and this one seems to have quite good coverage. SaraLiX5 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state what sources "seem" to be good coverage and how they meet notability guidelines. I would suggest doing a bit more editing to try and understand policy and guidelines better before discussing deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, i improved the article by adding more information and more reliable sources, like a new one from "Jeune Afrique" and another from IOL. i will change the search bar to put the right name of the subject "Yoco" instead of "Yoco Technologies" like i did before. Regards, MathieuPaul1977 (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bingelhelm[edit]

Simon Bingelhelm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I tried everything—from searching in English, German, and my University database—but I could not find other significant pieces of coverage. Serial killers are not inherently notable and nothing else can suggest this individual meets GNG. I give some leeway for older subjects but a single source not specifically on the person falls short in my opinion. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep https://books.google.de/books?id=B3AlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT45&dq=%22Simon+Bingelhelm%22&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwkeKktp3fAhXOqIsKHUVXAo8Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Simon%20Bingelhelm%22&f=false http://www.vintagebuch.de/serienmoerder-deutschland-von-juergen-bartsch-olaf-daeter-volker-eckert-fritz-haarmann-thomas-holst-peter-kuerten-bis-mittagsmoerder/ indicates to me that the person in question continues to appear in printmedia 400 years on. The single reference mentioned by the TheGracefulSlick a summary of older sources in a local paper. But there is more than just local interest. Agathoclea (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and leave tag for sourcing in place. serial killer from 500 years ago comes complete with tourist cave where he allegedly murdered people, medieval painting of him being drawn and quartered on pinterest [6] and medieval drawing of him being drawn and quartered [7] on wikivisually. Can't delete the fact that we are a gory species.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I realize, "it's interesting" isn't really a good reason to keep, but this article is. References may be harder to find secondary to age, and the article appears to have been roughly translated, but I think time will improve it. Ifnord (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Don't Fear) The Reaper. Content can be merged from history once it is reliably sourced. Sandstein 09:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Fear the Reaper: The Best of Blue Öyster Cult[edit]

Don't Fear the Reaper: The Best of Blue Öyster Cult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An obscure compilation, not even with an AllMusic review. The only “source” I found include discogs and amazon, none of which are notable. No indications that this meets GNG or placed on a notable chart. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be two albums with almost the exact same name that are being confused here: the one linked above by theGracefulSlick, entitled "The Best of Blue Öyster Cult: Don't Fear the Reaper", which was released in 1983, and the one called "Don't Fear the Reaper [Sony Music Special Products]", which was released in 2000. The title of the former of these albums better matches the title of this article, but the article has the release date (February 8, 2000) of the latter, while also having the album cover of the former. This needs to be sorted out, partly since the latter album actually does have an AllMusic review. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer scrutiny it is clear that the track listing for this album also matches that of the 1983 album, not the 2000 one. In short, it is clear that this album was released in 1983, not 2000, in which case the statement by theGracefulSlick that this album has no AllMusic review is correct, but the release date for the album in the article now is not. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well-known "Best Of" by the band, which has been re-released in multiple formats since appearing on early CD in 1983. According to WorldCat, there were at least 8 editions published from 1983 onward. Here, for example, is the 1983 cassette tape. In 2016, there was even a limited edition Double-Album on blue vinyl release. --Leflyman^Talk 19:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Amazon and WorldCat do not prove the assertion of being “well-known”—reliable, significant coverage does.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Originally claimed in the AFD it was "an obscure compilation" -- which it is not, as demonstrated by the number of times the album has been re-released. Perhaps if not familiar with the Blue Oyster Cult and are only looking for Internet sources, it seems to be "obscure." For a "Best Of" released in 1983, that has been in continuous release since, that's an amusing claim. This may be a case of systemic bias; as you may not find sources for things like Best Of albums which were discussed in print before the Internet existed.

Note that the article Best Of includes many such compilation albums from numerous artists, which is expanded in the List of greatest hits albums. Would you argue that all of those are likewise obscure and non-notable? --Leflyman^Talk 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leflyman the onus is on you to present reliable sources. We cannot work on the belief sources may possibly exist in print; that argument—something we tend to avoid—could be thrown into any discussion on notability to get around addressing the issue. As for your question, that is a straw man arguement since I never claimed that all “Best of”/greatest hits albums are inherently obscure and unnotable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheGracefulSlick, actually, the onus is upon you to demonstrate why WorldCat is not a "reliable source." Likewise, the point about the Amazon listing demonstrates that a new version does exist, in vinyl, with actual reviews, which like those at AllMusic show that it is not "obscure." WP:ATA is an essay, and while it may feel appropriate to reference it, I'd suggest it's best to avoid trying to cite essays as though they are policy. As to my final point, you have chosen a single "Best Of" album by a well-known band to target, which is no different than the hundreds of other Best Ofs in the category List of greatest hits albums and Category:Greatest_hits_albums_by_year.

Your claim for removing this article breaks down to 1) The album is "an obscure compilation"; 2) that it doesn't even have a review on AllMusic; 3) that you weren't able to find any sources, other than discog and Amazon, which you state are not "notable". I have shown that none of these claims are accurate. Perhaps if you were talking about later released compilations, The 70s: Blue Oyster Cult or The Essential Blue Oyster Cult-- both of which actually have AllMusic reviews, the latter even having an article -- then I would have agreed that they might be "obscure." But this was the first compilation released for the band, and continues in release, as the library holdings show.--Leflyman^Talk 17:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to (Don't Fear) The Reaper, a brief discussion of this album will be a useful addition to the article about this band's most notable song. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Rzvas (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge may work but I caution editors that the sources presented here are not reliable and hence unsuitable to a merge.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains^(talk) 03:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Water Stations[edit]

Water Stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify Unsuitable as an article right now, but may have potential. PrussianOwl (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @PrussianOwl: The article has been expanded since the time you !voted above. Just a note that you may want to check it out now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG (see, e.g., [8] [9] [10]). Admittedly, the nine minutes between article creation and nomination to AfD may not have provided enough time for a proper WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be only local coverage though no? Meatsgains^(talk) 03:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Bakazaka (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Bakazaka, and this later source and this source. The latter isn't local. JC7V (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are strong indicia of notability under NCORP. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD, as per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. PrussianOwl (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be notable, and has been expanded since the AfD started TheMesquito^buzz 16:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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