< 25 July	27 July >

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

The result was withdrawn by nom due to added sources which prove notability. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 17:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarville JF[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCLUB. Non-notable amateur club without sources. » Shadowowl | talk 23:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was one source in the corresponding French article, and I added others. An interview with a former player: https://www.estrepublicain.fr/sport/2016/11/29/pere-et-coach-mode-d-emploi Parent-child pairs: https://www.estrepublicain.fr/sport/2016/11/29/pere-et-coach-mode-d-emploi Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an amateur football club who has reached the rounds where professional clubs enter the Coupe de France several times in recent years, including the round of 16 (added sources to verify). Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTYN has played in the Coupe de France All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaseiken Necromancer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES. » Shadowowl | talk 23:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a Japanese video game like this one, the first step should have been to look at the corresponding article in the Japanese Wikipedia, which has several references. Here is an English translation of the Japanese article. There is a review at "October Special Appendix PC Engine All Catalog '93", "PC Engine FAN" Volume 6, No. 10, Tokuma Shoten , October 1, 1993, page 41, which is not online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also the listing at Poll: Japan's Most Memorable Games on Each Console. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RSes demonstrably exist. Phediuk (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to existence of multiple RS, which can also be used to expand the article. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tweaked DBigXray's copy, hopefully sufficient to avoid needing to retain this as a redirect ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. launches campaign to erode support for Iran's leaders[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS - this is essentially a news article. St Anselm (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A number of sources look strangely identical and vague. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article has some text apparently copied from other websites: [1] [2] (full list here, though note that the first two hits are just quotes). (It's been a long time since I !voted on one of these, so I probably won't.) ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 03:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE

Your claim about copied from website is incorrect. There are some part that is quotation which i refered to in the article. Can you cite the one copied from a website? User: Salatiwiki —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links I gave show copied text that is not quotations. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 01:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. This appears to essay intended to criticize particular U.S. government actions. Although it includes various facts or quotes, it's seems like an advocacy piece. There a many places for that, but not Wikipedia. --JamesAM (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. bd2412 T 16:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is so egregious a WP:NOTNEWS violation it might be worth keeping in project space to serve as an example of what not to do. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What everyone else said. This seems to be a news/opinion piece partly composed of text from the sources (as I pointed out above). There could be a usable topic here, but it would need a different title and different content, so I don't think this is worth keeping. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 07:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. With this edit I have copied (with some minor re phrasing) the lead to Iran–United_States_relations#2017–present:_Trump_administration. That's all that this article can contribute. --DBigXray 08:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AS Illzach Modenheim[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCLUB. Non-notable amateur club without sources. » Shadowowl | talk 23:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Always check the corresponding article in other relevant Wikipedias. The corresponding article in the French Wikipedia already had this book listed under "Bibliography: * coll., 100 ans de football en Alsace (tome 3 : 1921-1932), Strasbourg, Ligue d'Alsace et Edito, 2002, p.340-341. The book does not appear to be online. Perhaps two pages counts as in-depth for a club founded in 1932. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an amateur football club which reached the 7th round (where fully professional clubs enter the competition) of the 2010–11 and 2012–13 Coupe de France. Added sources to verify. Jogurney (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having played in the national cup, clearly satisfies WP:FOOTYN. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:FOOTYN. SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Selection[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES. Unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The added references mean very little, one is a blog, and the other a review of one of the games. I couldn't find anything about the series as a whole. It's also certainly not suitible for mainspace. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Lee Vilenski. It exists, but there's very little information on it. On the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it's just mentioned in passing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A review of an enhanced remake of a game that is a component of Hudson Selection confers notability on Hudson Selection as a whole. A blog can be a reliable source if it is subject to the same quality control and editing as a print publication. Sometimes a blog is one person's unedited ramblings, but sometimes it is as good as a print publication. In this case, GameBlog seems to be the equivalent of a print publication. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not think that "A review of an enhanced remake of a game that is a component of Hudson Selection confers notability on Hudson Selection as a whole" Rather, it's an additional reference for the article on the game. We do not usually contsideranthologies notale because they contain notable items, or every anthology would be notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "[reply]
Delete The games can each be discussed in the respective articles of the games they are remakes of. The remake series is not notable. TarkusAB^talk 14:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jess_Wade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jess Wade

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

Failure to meet notability guidelines for academic individuals. See talk page.

Local labrat (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Local labrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep. See Academic writes 270 Wikipedia pages in a year to get female scientists noticed, an article in a WP:RS source specifically about her. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Physics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BASIC having received international coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I withdrawal my AFD.Local labrat (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Horton (bridge)[edit]

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

There is no WP:NBRIDGE guideline. Suggestions have been made that anyone who has won five major contract bridge events, or who has competed as a national representative in a major international tournament, pass it. I can find no evidence that Horton meets any of those suggested WP:NBRIDGE thresholds. In the absence of a guideline agreed after discussion and WP:CONSENSUS: WP:GNG and WP:NBIO apply as defaults.

He is the editor of the current incarnation of Bridge Magazine. However, he cannot WP:INHERIT notability from that.

A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing specifically about Horton except the two citations in Mark Horton (bridge)#Controversies. IMO neither of those gets him through any of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NCRIME.

This has been a long-winded nomination. For the avoidance of doubt, my vote is for delete.

(I haven't tried to notify article creator User:Wispity, who has been inactive since 2009.)

Full disclosure. I have played against Horton at the bridge table, although more than a decade ago. I would say, that I have met him but do not know him. Whoever closes this debate should bear in mind any possible bias on my part. Narky Blert (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say that his editorship of Bridge Magazine and other activities in the world of bridge are enough to make him notable, assuming that there are suitable citations for them. However it's not a very satisfactory article, as it seems to "big him up" somewhat, so that I have the suspicion that he might have written some of it himself. JH (talk page) 09:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no doubt that he is well known internationally as a contract bridge writer. The article was previously nominated for deletion with the outcome of 'no consensus'. The recent accusations of plagiarism only go to support retention IMHO, heightening interest in the individual, not diminishing it. In any case, proof of guilt in unethical or criminal behaviour should not be the basis for deletion of an article, else many articles of far more nefarious people would be deleted. The deficiencies in the article are no worse than that in many articles and it should remain available for correction and improvement. Newwhist (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The deficiencies in the article are no worse than that in many articles and it should remain available for correction and improvement." That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Narky Blert (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom. This "he is or must be well known" is all very well. Where are the WP:RS sources? because they aren't in the article. Narky Blert (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious place to look would be the Encyclopaedia of Bridge. Unfortunately my own copy is the 5th edition of 1994, and doesn't have an entry for him. Does anyone have a more recent edition? The British Bridge Almanack, published in 2004, lists him on page 153 as being the current editor of Bridge Magazine. JH (talk page) 09:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed in the 7th edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (2011). His entry is on page 215 of the bibliographies and results CD and he is listed under the category 'Other Notable Personalities".

It states, in part (full attribution): "...he formed a partnership with Richard Winter and they rapidly rose to the top, winning in rapid succession a host of major events, including the Life Master Pairs, the Grandmaster Pairs, Crockford’s Cup and the Spring Foursomes. Their success earned them invitations to overseas events and they won both the famous Hoechst Team tournament and the Dunhill Cup. They represented England on numerous occasions and were on the Great Britain team in the World Championships in Albuquerque in 1994." The listing also speaks to his stature in chess and as a bridge writer.

I consider this source sufficiently reliable to establish notability. Newwhist (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is one of the leading Bridge writer from Britian, he is getting secondary coverage as stated above due to the scandal. Just because an article isn't a GA or FA ,doesn't mean it should be deleted if it is notable. JC7V-constructive zone 04:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion in the encyclopedia of bridge and satisfaction of GNG makes him acceptable for wikipedia. --1l2l3k (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Lopez (footballer)[edit]

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

Youth footballer who is not the subject of extensive coverage and does not meet WP:FOOTYN criteria. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable youth playing football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this player meets the notability requirements of either WP:Notability (sports)#Association football or the WP:GNG. — Satori Son 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. only the first source is actually about him (all others are trivial mentions), and that one doesn't really look like a RS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. (non-admin closure) Fit India 08:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cesare Catania[edit]

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

A fake biennale, a vanity gallery for hire, an exhibition during the Cannes Film Festival that has nothing to do with the official festival. This is all fakery and outright lies, but apparently supported by "Italian Embassy". They really did write that. And just so we're clear, when the article says he exhibited at the Louvre, they don't mean the Musée du Louvre, they mean the Carrousel du Louvre, a shopping mall. Vexations (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 07:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect to Boracay#Tourism. There is a clear consensus for deletion, but on the off chance that someone comes to the encyclopedia looking for this, it is harmless to merge some of the content to the article and section that would naturally host this material. The article is therefore effectively deleted (as there is no longer an article on the subject), but the information is not lost. bd2412 T 13:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Shores[edit]

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

Non-notable page created from SPA to promote the resort, no major news coverage, clearly non-notable. There is no place for advertisement or promotion on WP. 157.37.170.168 (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 06:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi there! I created the page. I love the place, I've been there several times. So, close connection to the subject? I guess so. Notable? It sure looked that way to me, but that's for the Wikipedia guys to decide. But I noticed something else when I looked at page history. There were experienced Wikipedia people like Domdeparis and especially Eastmain, who tried to do something with my article, and there were some IP numbers who did nothing on Wikipedia but nominate my article for deletion several times. Does that normally happen? Because it looks strange to me. Barbare-asie (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources. The most significant reference is the ABS-CBN article that talks about a six-month shutdown, which is not notable. Newslinger (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be adequate coverage from reliable news media in the Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stub article with a lot of low quality sources including reviews. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Eastmain. 49.148.186.251 (talk)

— 49.148.186.251 contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It seems ip 49.148.186.251 has been editing-en-mass after it was pointed out they have made few contributions outside of this AfD. They also seem to have an unusual editing pattern, with their fifth recorded edit being to this AfD ([3]), their eighth edit being to User:Barbare-asie's (the article creator) talk page ([4]) with an improperly placed coi disclosure tag, and then removing the COI tag from this article with their ninth edit [5]. It is also a phillipino ip adress, the country where the subject resort is located.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable resort that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The article lacks quality sourcing covering the internal processes of the hotel are lacking, and more of the coverage is about the features of the hotel than the actual business the hotel conducts. This is an issues as (per WP:NOT) Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and WP:NOT directly states "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like", so while sourcing does make a claim to significance (awards won, for example) for the hotel, the article subject still fails WP:NOTE. Expanding upon this point, I feel that a hotel winning several non-notable, regional awards does not encyclopedic notability make.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Blog posts and reviews by questionable sources. NCORP specifically recommends not counting questionably independent sources when assessing notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Pepper Snapple Bottling Group[edit]

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

~~Uncited, unreferenced, no notability. Official site does not even match article title.~~ Softlavender (talk) 06:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this does not have any citations, save for an external link which, as the nominator said, does not match the article's title. Vorbee (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge any useful content to Keurig Dr Pepper which acquired Dr Pepper Snapple Group. At this point the article is out of date and the company was just a wholly owned subsidiary that probably isn’t notable on its own. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 12:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once notable, always notable. We have lots of articles about defunct companies. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Eastmain, please demonstrate how Dr Pepper Snapple Bottling Group meets WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. I have found several reliable sources about the company, so I ~~am going to improve~~ have improved, cited, corrected, and greatly expanded the article. I would withdraw this AfD nomination if I could, but there have already been some !votes other than keep. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC); edited 03:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. I have fulfilled all "citation needed" tags and cleaned up the references to make the quality even better. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the switch of Nom to Keep, I feel sufficient disagreement remains to make further consideration necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per nom, passes GNG search. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has been improved by the nominator and seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas ap Rhodri ab Owain Gwynedd[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This entry is entirely genealogical in nature and appears to have been created for solely genealogical purposes, to promote the claimed descents of much later Welsh families from the Gwynedd kings. There are no sources; the only footnote is not a citation, but a further unreferenced genealogical elaboration. No evidence of independent notability, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Agricolae (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page. It is part of the same genealogical web, and has been marked as unreferenced for almost a decade. While it contains biographical information, such as the claim that the subject is "Head of the House of Aberffraw" this presumption appears to be that of a Wikipedia editor, not of historians. Indeed, that such a title existed is a conceit. Agricolae (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- These people were potentially claimants to be Princes of Wales or at least of Gwynedd. However I do not think that anyone actively asserted such a claim at the time (other than Owain Glyndwr). The descent of the Wynn family is recorded in Burke's Peerage, s.v. [Williams]-Wynn, so that this is verifiable. This was a prominent gentry family in north Wales. The descent of Sir John Wynne 1553-1626 may be notable, as may be his History of Gwydir where he published the descent, but I doubt if many of the people who are links in the chain are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. A genealogy may be notable (e.g. Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies or Kings of Germany family tree) without every name in it being notable. Srnec (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would even challenge the notability of the descent. The 19th century editions of Burke's that reported this are not WP:RS and Wynn's history is self-published, non-independent. We generally don't take such claims at face value, even (especially) if it would make the author a potential claimant to be the rightful ruler of a nation. Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This (claimed) descent is almost certainly not notable enough for an article. Srnec (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The rationales of both Srnec and Agricolae are spot on. Fails WP:BIO and as per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I find the category argument particularly convincing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary worship songs[edit]

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

Unsourced and this is better handled by a category as the songs are not being discussed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A category may end up listing thousands of songs where there is no distinction of what is relevant and what is just an ordinary track that will go away. So a list of thousands of songs is no list at all. This present list may be subjective, but it lists only the select ones that have passed the test of time and enjoy greater popularity across the board and have achieved long-term fame and use. It can always be improved, rather than deleted. werldwayd (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no distinction of what is relevant and an ordinary track here either. At least with a category, we can be sure that any song that meets notability guidelines has a fighting chance of being listed in it as most start with the content of a previous article. There's no indication that any of the entries here are more important than others. No indication that they were in the CCLI top 10 (or 25 or 50 or 100, depending on the time or country). No indication that they were mentioned in Worship Musician magazine as a top song of the year, or any other publication for that matter. So when the criteria for inclusion is that it's just a contemporary worship song, what sort of criteria was being used to determine that a song had "greater popularity and more stable long-term fame" than other songs? That's what needs to be referenced. For instance, "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" and "Mighty to Save" were only popular for about two years each. There's no indication that "El Shaddai" is even a worship song while "We Believe" was never a popular worship song as far as I can tell. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself seems to point out a major issue here - it mentions how there are thousands (potentially tens of thousands) of contemporary worship songs. It currently lists like 10. There’s a big WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue here. The fact that it’s unsourced is also an issue, though that part is probably more related to it being poorly written than the sources not existing. My main issue is the massive scope. Sergecross73 msg me 21:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, no sources and no mention of being 'contemporary' in most of the articles. Ajf773 (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to my comment on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I just dug through the page history to see that the page was initially created as a 4 song unsourced list in 2007. To put that in perspective, out of a subject with potentially thousands of items to list, over the course of a decade, it’s has grown from 4 items to 10 items, and from zero sources to zero sources. It doesn’t seem improvement is coming. Sergecross73 msg me 22:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:INDISCRIMINATE standard, and I agree with the nominator that a category is a better way to handle this matter for anyone interested in perusing a collection of articles on such songs. If the category gets too big, sub-categories can be added. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Madison–Richmond football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero citations which reference the "rivarly," much less significant coverage. Therefore the rivalry claim is not currently established to GNG standards ("significant coverage") via existing citations. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE identifies certain Google searches that should be undertaken before nominating an article for deletion. Here, even a basic google search turns up multiple, reliable sources addressing this as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "No ESPN, but JMU-Richmond still just as big", Sports Illustrated, 11/4/16; (2) "Tight games, high-energy atmospheres became norms for UR-JMU rivalry", Richmond Times-Dispatch, 11/8/17; (3) "Ties Run Deep With Dukes, Spiders", Daily News-Record, 11/11/17; (4) "James Madison fans use Robins statue to renew rivalry early", The Collegian, 11/3/16 (arguably not independent, but strong evidence of rivalry's intensity among student bodies); (5) "In ‘dream come true,’ College GameDay comes to Harrisonburg, JMU", WTOP, 10/23/15; (6) "JMU, Richmond ready for next chapter in football rivalry", The Breeze, 7/31/17 (arguably not independent, but good evidence of rivalry's reality among students at both schools). Other intangibles supporting true rivalry status include (i) in-state competion, (ii) close competition - 18 wins to 17; (iii) regularity (36 games in past 37 years); and (iv) hosting ESPN's College GameDay. Cbl62 (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as noted by nom, GNG applies. GNG would certainly be satisfied by the sources (note, best sources will be unaccessible to some via GDPR) indicated above. It's not one of the truly globally known rivalries, but it's certainly significant and notable. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the evidence provided by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep smaller school rivalry articles generally don't produce the coverage necessary for inclusion to pass WP:GNG, but this clearly seems to be an exception based on new coverage discovered. Great job Cbl62!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTEP–UTSA football rivalry[edit]

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

WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are two citations which reference the "rivarly," with headlines stating "UTEP, UTSA look to build rivalry" (2017) and "Notes: UTEP, UTSA has potential for rivalry" (2016). Therefore the rivalry claim is not currently established to GNG standards ("significant coverage") via existing citations which cover the five game played to date (2013-2017). Fails GNG, might be WP:TOOSOON. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "Rivalry does not have the press required to be an article unlike the Eagles-Giants or Red Sox-Yankees. It is WP:TOOSOON. RavenLord64 (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ultimately this is just a glorified summary of a close game. There are brief tidbits and headlines that allude to this being a possible or potential rivalry, but nothing satisfying the significant coverage requirement, i.e., of the level of the I-35 Rivalry. At the risk of sounding like WP:IDONTKNOWIT, I can't think of anyone in the UTSA community who seriously refers to this as a rivalry akin to that with Texas State, and a cursory evaluation of sources such as The Paisano don't see it as such either. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The coverage (here and here) suggests that this is a budding rivalry, but with only five games played, it's not there yet. If coverage shows this had developed into a true rivalry, we should keep an open mind about re-creating the article in the future. Cbl62 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I think there is ample evidence that this is a legit college football rivalry. My question about this "notability" thing is this: If this is not considered a "notable" article, then aren't all Conference USA rivalries in the Conference USA navbox? If this article is deleted then won't the rest be? This, I believe, is an inconsistency. And all other Group of 5 rivalry games and even some Power 5 rivalry games as well would fall into that same category. I feel pretty confident that if this article were deleted now, it would just be re-written again in the future, so deleting it then having to write it all over again doesn't make sense to me. I vote to keep this page intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalebHughes (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this is a national-level rivalry that I can find. It could turn in to one... no prejudice to re-create article in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-Keep It will become of something due to the proximity between the schools, recruiting, and recent game results. Even both the coaches say there is something building currently, due to those reasons.^[1] The rivalry is just as little as the Battle Line Rivalry, the only difference is the media pressure to making that rivalry develop, when in reality its Arkansas with LSU and Missouri and Kansas. --Jpp858 (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "No longer UTEP's little brother, UTSA is the favorite". El Paso Times. October 26, 2017. Retrieved August 2, 2018.

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

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

The result was delete. In the interest of the full discussion below, I'm going to restore the redirect and nominate it for RfD. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_3#Pointy ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy[edit]

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

Promotional, fails GNG ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Atsme that this is promotional and fails GNG. Question whether the redirect should be restored as an WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, the redirect went to ballerina pointe shoes. The article is about an internet connected tool used to keep up with retail inventory. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Indeed. The question for me is if Pointy is a useful redirect to the ballerina shoes or not. I agree with you that this article doesn't belong there. Is there a reason you see deletion as better than closing this as redirect? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I didn't think such a redirect would fall under the purpose of redirects per Help:Redirect#Purposes of a redirect. Maybe "Pointy" would serve best as a dab page...^{Atsme📞📧} 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and recreate it as a redirect?

Pointy (the device) is mentioned in a few news sources https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pointy&tbm=nws though --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the target of the redirect? Pointy can mean many different things. It doesn't quite pass GNG, and if it did pass, I'd recommend moving it to "Pointy (inventory device)" or something similar. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find any sources to establish notability. Most of the coverage seems to have occurred as a result of the funding rounds. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RC Cola. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry RC[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTCATALOG. Has no citations except advertising mention. The product is already adequately covered in RC Cola, so this is a duplicative and redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. This article is simply fancruft. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RC Cola. Various source searches are not providing much to qualify a standalone article; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. However, this is a functional search term as per WP:ATD-R, so redirection would be functional. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkrawat Road[edit]

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

The road does not appear to have significant coverage to satisfy WP:GEOROAD. Sources given are from forum posts (therefore unreliable), and I cannot find other sources apart from trivial or passing mentions in websites and books. It is hard to tell if there are reliable sources in Thai (they also appear to be largely trivial and passing mentions), and thus far no other sources added despite being requested. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Apologies to User:Hzh as I meant to respond earlier to their request that the reference I mentioned be added to the article, but forgot. It's a three-paragraph entry (slightly over a page long) in a 400-page gazetteer. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be a historic commercial road, created (per the article) in 1893 as a carriage road to get the King perhaps and others through the shopping district area. I dunno if it is significant like 42nd Street in New York City but it may be. (Also per the article) it is named for Thai temple "Wat Chakkrawat" or "Wat Sam Pluem", a temple located on the road which my guess would be individually notable and could/would get an article if the road article were deleted. I am not attempting to search myself, but coverage for the temple in English and Thai by those with expertise in relevant languages should be considered.

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

Let the article cover the road and its history and the temple too. --Doncram (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources shown, none I can find, and fails WP:GEOROAD. SportingFlyer talk 22:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, the source I mentioned, Kanokwalee Chuchaiya, ed. (2005). พจนานุกรมวิสามานยนามไทย : วัด วัง ถนน สะพาน ป้อม [Dictionary of Thai Proper Nouns: Temples, Palaces, Roads, Bridges, Forts] (in Thai). Royal Institute. pp. 35–36. ISBN 974958838X. is a reliable book source. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is also mentioned along with other streets in Wīrasinchai, Sansanī (2008). Chư̄ bān nām mư̄ang nai Krung Thēp (Phim khrang thī 7. ed.). Krung Thēp Mahā Nakhō̜n: Matichon. ISBN 9789740202585. and this paper ("The Building of Streets in Bangkok and the Economic Advantages of the Siamese Leading Class"), but nothing I'd call in-depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Paul 012's single source is reliable, it is a single reliable source. The other coverage is trivial. It's a shame editors with more knowledge of that region and language have not participated in the discussion, they might have access to other sources. But the fact there might be sources is not a valid reason to keep. Redirecting to the district would be another option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Housing cooperative#India. There's some sort of consensus that this content isn't quite suited for its own article as is, and several different suggestions as to where it should go (if at all). I'm not sure if this is the best target, though it seems to be a good fit - if anyone thinks there's a better place, please retarget it there. Content is unsourced, but if sources are found, it can be merged in, and if sufficient sources are found for a standalone article, feel free to rewrite the article. ansh 666 08:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Housing society[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a worthwhile topic and should be kept if references can be added.--Abramsky (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

This discussion has been removed from the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Even though the phrase "Hong Kong" is in the hatnote, the article has nothing to do with Hong Kong. — Newslinger talk 15:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this similar to a homeowner association? Chris857 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge into Homeowner association.~~ "Housing society" appears to be a variation of "homeowner association," most likely a regional term as described in Condominium#India ("Co-operative Housing Society"). Newslinger (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Homeowner association. An article with no references shouldn't be merged. Newslinger (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a reference. Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Homeowner association is clearly about the USA. Attempts to deal with this topic on a global basis seem unlikely to succeed. This article is a good example of a lot of unsubstantiated assertions, presumably taken from the context in which it was written. We already have many articles, see Category:Housing organizations. This essay is superfluous.Rathfelder (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hhkohh: or others please relist this to India related topics. It has some resemblance to Resident welfare association. The topic appears notable. --DBigXray 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply a short essay, which is basically WP:OR. I think if someone had the inclination, and reliable sourcing were to be found, Newslinger's idea of redirecting to Homeowner association, and having a section there dealing with the concept on a global basis, might be the way to go. Until then, delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While a definition of common term, it should be expanded and have examples. The term can be found anywhere else on the internet. Additionally, per nom and comment above about it being an essay.Redditaddict69 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to housing cooperative. That article also covers common "housing companies" not just strictly co-operatives. --Pudeo (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Housing cooperative#India, better yet. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Good consensus to keep. I shall rename as "Domnus of Pannonia" as that has a slight rough consensus. A chat on the article talk page for a different name can always be made (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domnus of Stridon[edit]

Reason as explained on Talk:First Council of Nicaea#Domnus of Stridon:

Domnus of Stridon as one of only five attendants of the council from the Western part of the empire, has most likely never existed. In Gelzer's book Patrum Nicaenorum nomina, which seems to be the most accurate source for him, the index of council fathers lists only Budius of Stobi (probably missread as Strobi and so on Stribon; see pages XLIV, 56 and 247) and Domnus of Pannonia, listed directly after him. In the list in page 56 Domnus is also mentioned as metropolitanus (of metropolis) - and Stridon has never been a capital of any Pannonia (he was located in Dalmatia). It seems that the name of Domnus of Stridon was coined by mistake from names of these two bishops. This error was pointed out by Frane Bulić in his article Stridon (page 13) as early as 1920. The second possible source of missreading could be on the page 89 in the same book (as cited in footnotes of Domnus of Stridon) where Domnus of Trapezunt and Stratolius of Piteunt are listed, again mistakenly coined to Domnus of Stridon. But this hypothesis seems to be less relevant, since these two bishops came from Pontus Polemoniacus, which was part of the Eastern part of the empire. --Janezdrilc (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this was a real person. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also in the First Council of Nicaea#Attendees the name should be changed to Domnus of Pannonia with explanation that in some secondary sources (like here or here) he is referred to as "of Stridon", although Stridon has never been an episcopal see according to known data. --Janezdrilc (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that he never existed isn't itself a reason for deletion. He may well qualify for Category:Legendary people. St Anselm (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (perhaps renamed) -- Stridon was his birthplace, so that it is an appropriate description of him. It does not help that Pannonia, his see, has been piped as "Danube". Perhaps the article should be renamed to Domnus of Pannonia or Domnus, Bishop of Pannonia, leaving a redirect. In fact neither of these is likely to be his formal name. If he was a Roman citizen, as is likely, he would have had a forename, a name and a cognomen, but the chances are that we do not know any of these; or for that matter anything else about him. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Janezdrilc, User:Johnpacklambert, User:StAnselm and User:Peterkingiron: I have completely rewritten the article. I think it should be kept, but re-titled as Domnus of Sirmium or even Domnus of Pannonia. Thanks, Srnec (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Domnus of Pannonia per the above discussion. St Anselm (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename seems reasonable now. Maybe to add: Stridon most probably did not have bishops (Marijan Mandac is convinced Stridon was an episcopal see, although Frane Bulić is convinced opposite; source: Rafko Valenčič, Sveti Hieronim – mož s Krasa, Družina, Ljubljana 2007, pages 65, 89.). Second: Existing of Domnus of Stridon would probably be a sufficient proof that Stridon was an episcopal see as allmost all Nicaean fathers are named together with cities where they had served as bishops. --Janezdrilc (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Move as needed. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Domnus bishop of Sirmium meets WP:CLERGY. BEFORE shows sources on this early bishop. Agree article should be re-titled (no firm opnion on Domnus of Pannonia vs. Domnus of Sirmium - both seem good - unsure of early Bishop naming conventions). We should keep the current title as redirect.Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Clerc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was closed as "no consensus" after nobody took part except the nominator (Duffbeerforme) and the creator of the article (Ryan Vesey). However, the reasons given then for deletion still apply now. This is an article about someone who made three films when he was a student. (I have searched, and failed to find any record of his ever having had any part in any film-making since then.) There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines, either in the article or anywhere else that I have seen. References in the article are a dead link, a link to a YouTube video, YouTube stats, and a few brief news reports in local media of the "local boy makes a film" kind. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this line from the article sums it up "In addition to making films, Clerc films city council meetings for the City of Windom". That would be a city of less than 5,000. I guess being the city council filmmer for a dinky city is not a default show of not being notable, but when all your films were student films that have no notability combined with this, I think it is a clear indication that Clerc is not yet notable. He may one day actually make a notable film, but not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lambert; this is either WP:TOOSOON or a vanity resume. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and the WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EISER Infrastructure[edit]

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

Fails NCORP. Only known for suing Spain, which ironically the article excludes (either the article is outdated, or there has been a whitewash). — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only mentions, SIGCOV. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a replacement for a corporate web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH with not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by proposer. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parko Paliatso[edit]

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

Non-notable amusement park and the article is unsourced . Kpgj hpjm 16:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 16:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what does 'non-notable' exactly mean? it seems you are a bit triggered by the creation of a simple amusement park page. what's your problem, i still haven't figured. the page is new, sources will be added soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N236ik (talk • contribs) 09:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N236ik: So , Please add sources now , if you don't add now , then there is every chance that the article may be deleted . Kpgj hpjm 12:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N236ik: The article must have independent , reliable sources . TripAdvisor is not independent (based on the opinion of people) . So the article effectively has one source . Kpgj hpjm 13:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Kpgjhpjm, quite a few more reliable sources were added. And does TripAdvisor, being "not independent", present any misleading information about the park? (e.g. does it do any propaganda against other amusement parks? or does the opinion of people (that have been there!) present a biased view of the complex issues surrounding a simple amusement park? Anyway, I hope you agree with the addition of the new sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N236ik (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 July 2018 (UTC) N236ik (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)N236ik[reply]

UPDATE: 6 sources added, for a 2-heading long article. If you need more, let me know, so I can cover any other issues somebody may face when reading the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N236ik (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popoy En Jack: The Puliscredibles[edit]

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

"Upcoming film" of entirely undemonstrated notability, completely unsourced. Author has nothing better to do than continually recreate the stub w/o adding any improvements, so I'd suggest both delete and a slap on the wrist. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, please do not recreate it without good references such as reviews, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply fails WP:NFILM. I might say redirect, but the persistent recreation, bordering on disruptive editing, warrants a deletion until, and if, the film ever meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Park, Brooklyn racial attack[edit]

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

Well I'm usually pretty inclusionist, but there are a couple of problems with this article.

1) It's really just a middle school playground fight. Nobody was hurt (except feelings) and the the five "perps" were sentenced to probation. It's really just sub-notable. However, it does meet the WP:GNG (there are "multiple" (two) refs "in depth" (full articles) in notable/reliable sources (NY Post, Village Voice), and since we're not paper, I'd say it's not hurting anyone, but...

2) ...the title is wrong. It wasn't a "racial attack". It was a fight (I gather) between girls from two schools in a de-facto segregated system (black public school girls, white private school girls). So on that level it was racial, but... I mean there is such a thing as black people attacking white people because of their race, but it kind of trivializes that phenomena to include playground fights... if it is to be kept it should probably be moved to "Marine Park middle school playground fight of March 30, 2005" or something... maybe "That one time some white private-school moms got butt-hurt and tried to make a federal case out of a playground fight", which is really what the main ref (Village Voice) supports. Enh, it's too much trouble and I don't see the article is being worthwhile under any name.

N.B. Here is an abstract of the NY Post ref which the url in the article is broken. Herostratus (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCRIME; no lasting significance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per K.e.coffman's rationale, which hits it on the head. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Núñez López[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable enough to qualify for WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NAUTHOR. The sources given are interviews, which don't add much to notability. All hits I found on Google were false positives - people who had names like "Marco Antonio Núñez López". Even using -Marco and similar to remove these false positives didn't produce any hits.

The es.wiki article was deleted in Sept 2017 for being promotional/conflict of interest, and I think that's exactly what we should be doing here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Fit India 08:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As nom pointed out, searching is difficult due to the prominence of the notable Marco Antonio Núñez López, who interestingly doesn't have an article. He doesn't quite pass the threshold of notability. His one book, Storytelling in a Week might be notable, but I don't think any of his other works are. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Kumar Mishra[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no sign of satisfying WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, credible sources found (Times of India, which is a national newspaper). Some clean-up done.--Tabletop123 (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The sole thing of credit that he has done, is marrying a film-industry co-star, which automatically equates to gossip-stuff.And, acting in a bunch of non-notable films.Additionally, I'm aghast at the levels of PR stuff, indulged in by an ever-deteriorating TOI which has now gone to the extent of reprinting fan-blog-coverage! ∯WBG^converse 07:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator fails WP:MUSICBIO. Fit India 08:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Harrill[edit]

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

PROD contested as this article was deleted via PROD in 2006. It was never undeleted but was recreated independently in 2008, so IMO it should still be eligible, but whatever.

Original PROD reasoning: This person is not notable per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. None of the references in the article are independent or reliable. I searched extensively on Google, Google Books, Google News, Highbeam, and Newspapers.com and found nothing but trivial mentions at best.

PROD was endorsed by Mr. Guye with the reasoning: Really seems promising when you research him until you realize that none of the sources you are finding are independent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I stand by my Proposed deletion endorsement. No significant coverage in WP:INDY. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. There's no indication of any notability as a martial artist and there's also a lack of significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Googolplex (toy)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, includes three references to books published by the manufacturing company of the toy itself and a patent filing, no secondary sources at all. Lordtobi (✉) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Searches have provided no independent coverage of this toy; fails WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost no notable evidence of such a toy exists. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems agreement that NMUSIC criteria is satisfied and other potential deletion reasons removed post-rewrite. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rajam Pushpavanam[edit]

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

Spammy promo article that has a lot of WP:FLOWERY language like great (2x) , famous, much sought after, great success, wore the best, great sacrifice, great woman and so on. Fails WP:NMUSIC. » Shadowowl | talk 13:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have copy edited for neutrality and removed the flowery language and promotionalism. I believe she passes WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 of releasing albums on a major record label (Colombia) , and also has a big notability claim of being the first woman music director in South India, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GOLDENRULE. After Atlantic 306 edited, the page isn't flowery anymore. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a source, and there is more out there to add, passes GNG/BASIC, as well as MUSICBIO#5 . I don't really know how a short article on a singer who has been dead for almost 27 years is meant to be promotional, this revision was just the common fluff that can be removed by editing, and certainly not a G11 candidate. Accesscrawl is right, after the work done by Atlantic306, we have a much better article. Sam Sailor 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the additions and improvements by the previous editors I think this passes the GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Cusack[edit]

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

This person is not notable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.57.77 (talk)

Note: I do not vote, just help IP create AfD because we can not restore PROD. Hhkohh (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Participated in more than one World Championships, I think. See also "Fencer - CUSACK Brendan Francis - IRELAND - FIE - International Fencing Federation". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He competed at 4 adult world championships, but only won 1 match so he never advanced past the round of 64. His highest world ranking ever was 105th. I added this information to the article. As for his notability, the coverage appears to be local and/or routine sports reporting. I don't think his performances rise to the level of meeting WP:NSPORTS, but others may disagree. I'm refraining from voting at this moment. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete The FIE Senior World Championships are an annual event with nearly 1000 competitors. Don't believe just being there is sufficient to give automatic notability and he hasn't had much success there. Coverage does not meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are routine sports coverage, primarily of high school and FIE junior events, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for meeting WP:NSPORT, Sandals1 makes a good point about the size of the FIE world championships. This level of performance as a karateka, judoka, or taekwondo practitioner would never qualify as meeting the notability criteria of WP:MANOTE or WP:NSPORTS. Many people with more successful international careers have been eliminated at Afd discussions (yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF). I don't think mere participation at annual events this large shows notability without either better coverage or better results. A current world ranking of 647th indicates he's trending in the wrong direction and is unlikely to become more notable as a fencer. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Plays On Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage only. --wooden superman 11:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 14:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 14:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States -related deletion discussions. Kpgj hpjm 14:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this fails WP:NTOUR. It is WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikipedia is not a gig guide. Narky Blert (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Neighborhood Network[edit]

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

Puff piece about a television network which does not meet WP:NCORP. » Shadowowl | talk 11:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First-person plural, self-sourced article on a local metropolitan non-profit community cable service. It does not meet our referencing standards, and does not appear to meet our notability standards. Kablammo (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than local coverage, not much else. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Domestic Crusaders[edit]

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

It is questonable if this play is notable enough. The author is not notable for his own wiki-page; nor is the director. The Plot (With a keen sense of timing...) and the Reviews-section read like a part of an advertisement. The home-page is down. Sourcing is present, but only the New York Times-article can be seen as a "reliable source that is independent of the subject." I do not believe this is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but I can be wrong. Jeff5102 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was easily able to find coverage of this play from Newsweek, McSweeney's, Huffington Post, and other reliable sources. The article deserves a rewrite to be less promotional, but the subject appears to be notable. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the provision of sources, a 3rd relisting for additional discussion seems in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RL0919; those references plus the existing ones are (just) enough for GNG. I've removed a bunch of the promo material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asher Weisgan. and merge Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Shiloh settlement shooting[edit]

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

This was a recently created article boldly turned into a redirect. Because there is now debate as to whether we should have an article on this topic, and because WP:ARBPIA means the creator can't revert, I am filing this discussion to break the logjam. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asher Weisgan which is a long standing article that covers this shooting and nothing else. Weisgan is a BIO1E article whose contents duplicate this article - we should not have both.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Weisgan would be merged here, not vice versa. Individuals known for one event, per WP:BLP1E are mentioned in an article on the event itself. The article I created addresses said event with different sourcing and more detail.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TheGracefulSlick created this page. The long-standing Asher Weisgan was created as a 3-sentence stub, then shaped primarily by a leading pro-Palestinian editor. Dozens of editors have worked on it over the years, creating a in 2006 by an editor who is no longer very active, was built primarily by a leading pro-Palestinian editor, and has been edited over the years by several dozen editors into a reasonably good and long stable article on this mass shooting. It was perhaps not yet standard practice in 2006 to name mass murcers for the crime, rather than after the perp. But the original article is about the crime, it is not a bio, as page creator must have known because she linked her new page to the article about the crime. Because she is a highly experienced ediotr who regularly edits crime and terrorism-related articles, she must have known that she was creating a duplicate article. The puzzle is why she did not simply propose a new title for the longstanding article on this mass shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and internalize WP:NPA, particularly the operative phrase comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you. None of your comment is in any way relevant to the topic of this discussion, which is what should be done with this article. Kindly stop. nableezy - 17:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are approx. the same length wise, share some of the sources, and have similar content. Asher Weisgan has 2 working inter-wiki links (some of which are fairly well developed), and was edited by several editors over a period of 12 years - this should clearly be the merge target, to retain editing history and reflect editorial consensus. It might be worthwhile to rename Asher Weisgan to 2005 Shiloh shooting - but that's a separate matter.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article on the driver should be merged in the article on the incident. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am baffled that someone would unilaterally blank and redirect this article two hours after it was created. It clearly has much more information (including vital historical and political information before and after the event) than the Asher Weisgan article. In my opinion Icewhiz should stay away from this article entirely, as he is making dictatorial, unilateral decisions and apparently harassing the article creator. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, and ordering people around is counter to every single Wikipedia principle. This article is a notable topic and has important and encyclopedicly relevant information. Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge One way or the other, I don't see how we need two articles on the same events. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge / Redirect from Asher Weisgan The essential story here is about the incident and the article 2005 Shiloh settlement shooting is the one that should remain, with all of the relevant material included there from the Weisgan article. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn. In this case Asher Weisgan is a long-standing article that, despite its name, covers the crime, not the individual. Whereas this new article was created by an editor who knew the first article existed, and seems to have had some reason she has not yet explained for creating a new article on a topic that had a stable, longstanding article. This editor had already seen the existing article (she linked to it,) and ought to have simply suggested a new name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but from Asher Weisgan, not the other way around. nableezy - 20:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge / Redirect from Asher Weisgan; the bio is WP:BIO1E situation so it's best to redirect the article on the person to the article on the event. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Asher Weisgan. The Weisgan article, a stable entry for well over a decade, is written in a much more objective and encyclopaedic style. Post merger, the Asher Weisgan article should be re-titled, per WP:BLP1E. XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this new article to the longstanding article Asher Weisgan. The creator of this article, who ought to have thought twice about creating an article on a topic that we already cover, can then, if he wishes, start a discussion on renaming the article. The appropriate renaming would be 2005 Shiloh shooting. Note also that the newly created article has an inappropriately WP:POINTY title, and the new article itself is WP:POV, and given the accusations article creator flings on her talk page "you seem to have a keen, immediate interest only in articles I create " User talk:TheGracefulSlick#1RR, the creation of this article may have be WP:POINTy. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions at an AFD to try to “win”. Not surprised Gregory. Merging to an article that needs to be re-titled then introduced to new content is illogical. Note the disambiguation page Shiloh; there are numerous Shilohs, not to mention the the biblical city. Adding “settlement” clarifies the location immediately. And sorry but abiding by sources is not POV; if you disagree you are at the wrong place.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement is a poor disambig, as most of the other Shilohs are small settlements. The biblical city ruins are adjacent to the modern settlement. Most of the other Shilohs (in the US mostly) are named for biblical city and are small.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No disambig is needed. I took at look at the numerous Shilohs, as GracefulSlick apparently did not. I looked because I had never heard of any Shilo except for the Biblical location where this attack occurred and the American Civil War battlefield. Turns out that I had never heard of them because they are towns that range from very small to tiny, a few rural American townships, and a couple of ghost towns. There is absolutely no need for a disambig.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There is a Shiloh in Texas very much in the news today. I think the title of this is fine, and people who object to calling a settlement a settlement have other issues they should work through outside of Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Shiloh Treatment Center, a health care facility in the town of Manvel, Texas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheGracefulSlick, because you linked your page to the Asher Weisgan article in your first edit [[6]], ~~you obviously knew that an article about this crime existed. Can you explain why you chose to create a new page on this incident, rather than suggesting that the existing page be renamed?~~E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra linked the Asher Weisgan article, not me E.M.Gregory; I never noticed because editors do not typically edit others’ sandboxes. I noted my surprise at Huldra’s talk page and asked what I should do next. Any more assumptions of my state of mind when going in to creating the article? If not, I am just going to wait to merge and redirect the Asher Weisgan article—as is the logical and likely outcome—to here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The precise sequence seems to be Huldra editing the sandbox on 23 July, TheGracefulSlick mainspacing the article (by copy paste) on 06:38, 26 July 2018 and 3 minutes later 06:41, 26 July 2018 - posting the following at Huldra's talk - Hello, I recently created this article on the Shiloh settlement shooting in 2005. Thanks for linking to the Asher Weisgan article I did not know existed.. Now, as we are to WP:AGF, one must assume that TheGracefulSlick noticed Huldra's edit to their sandbox (and the sandbox being a duplicate of the Weisgan article) some 0-3 minutes after main spacing the article, following which they posted a query Huldra's talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still AGFing, one minute prior to main spacing the article - Revision as of 06:37, 26 July 2018 TheGracefulSlick made an edit adding the 2005 Shiloh settlement shooting to a paragraph (and sentence) that begins with the linked Asher Weisgan as the first two blue-linked words, however that would seem to have escaped notice.Icewhiz (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to discuss this at length throughout the AFD. Only makes the closing admin’s decision easier for a reverse merge. Reverse mergers have cited BLP1E and my ability to provide more historical context than the Asher Weisgan article. When we speak honesty, we all know what the merge target should be; re-working the Asher Weisgan—when the content is here already—just because it was “first” is a waste of time. The usual editors got their little jabs in on me again, but it only strengthens my (and others’) position on this AfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. I accept that an editor who has created 298 articles, who created the article in a sandbox where it stood long enough for other editors to help edit it, and who regularly edits crime-, terrorism- and I/P-related articles never thought to check n existing article existed. But can you explain why a long standing, NPOV, stable article should be deleted in favor of a newly-created article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing should be deleted. One should be redirected to the other. Both histories should be retained. The proper title however is this one, not the one titled after the perpetrator. nableezy - 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merge target should clearly be the long standing existing article - and not a new creation copied over from a user sandbox. That being said - the title of the existing article should change to reflect current conventions.Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares, yall agree there should be one article on this right? Then why are you arguing over this? Really, is the merge target also a partisan issue? nableezy - 17:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy it is more like them having an issue with me. But whatever I am used to it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By Nableezy's logic, I can create a new article that duplicates any or every topic that has a page, then, when someone attempts to merge it into the longstanding, stable article that already covers the topic, I post a misleading comment on a fellow editor's talk page stating that the article "was blanked and redirected" without explaining that the redirect was to a longstanding, stable article covers the same material addressed in my new article [7] - and then argue at AfD for keeping my article rather than the longstanding article. to me, given the editing record of the editor who created the new article, it appears disruptive or POINTy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles' histories are preserved, so who cares? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do, because process is important.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asher Weisgan. As sad as the event might be, there's no reason to cast a dark shadow over the non-involved and unsuspecting residents of Shiloh, as if they were to blame for this incident.Davidbena (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on shootings are commonly named with the city/town/area in the title...TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The merge target, for identical articles, has nothing to do with the best title (which would be 2005 Shiloh shooting) - following the merge, the merge target can be moved.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the older article, then rename the article 2005 Shiloh shooting. This preserves both the new work of TheGracefulSlick, as well as the editing history of the older article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tahith Chong[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played in a competitive, senior match for a professional club. He also fails WP:GNG, as all coverage of him seems to be little more than routine. – Pee Jay 08:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 08:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league or a senior international fixture and does not have enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete existing coverage is not significant enough to meet the GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I would not be opposed to it being moved to draft space, classic WP:TOOSOON. Article can be recreated if and when subject meets requirements listed above. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Washington[edit]

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save. Created as part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Activists and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Medicine projects to get articles written on women listed. If the subject wasn’t notable, they wouldn’t be listed. Postcard Cathy (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right from the project's heading: All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Postcard Cathy: crowd-sourced lists on WiR contain individuals that are likely to be notable, but they still need to pass GNG as TheGridExe points out. Sometimes people on the lists need a little more time to receive more coverage. Regina seems like one of these cases. I'll dig around a little though and see if I come up with anything in the databases, though. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete not seeing a claim of notability here that sticks: high level staff person within an agency for some other organization is not enough. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines; does not appear to be meet any special notability guideline Wolfson5 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hobbit families. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bolger of Budgeford[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:INUNIVERSE, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boffin of the Yale. ansh 666 07:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 07:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of hobbit families, or delete. Fram (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hobbit families as plausible search term. It is listed there. WP:ATD-R also applies. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lasertainment[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Looking at the given sources, the Saipan Tribune and Honolulu Star are passing mentions, the Pangolin Prize is non-notable and the Laserist piece is very brief and rountine. Created in 2007 by a single-purpose account. Tera TIX 07:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Detail in sources isn't of sufficient length in the non-primary sources. It's unclear whether Nom did a proper WP:BEFORE check, but in any case, nothing more than a few more 1/2 line mentions showed up in any reasonably reliable/independent source. Certainly nothing that satisfies WP:NCORP. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I was under the impression that it's normal not to mention your WP:BEFORE if you didn't find anything significant. Is that true? But, as you said, the results were brief mentions in directories and community newspapers – nothing approaching significant coverage. Tera TIX 00:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix: - hi, I just said I was unclear since your phrasing of "looking at the given sources" implied a possible sense of "only" in it. Obviously if that isn't the case then apologies. In the normal cause then of things then there's no need to mention it (other than preventing irritating people like me, I suppose). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: That's totally fine, thanks for keeping me on my toes! Tera TIX 09:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article. The company has been mentioned in media notices of various events for which they have provided laser displays, which verifies that this is a company going about its business, but I am not seeing the in-depth coverage about the company which is needed for WP:NCORP. The company has used Pangolin Laser Systems software ([8] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) so a Pangolin Prize should not be considered as independent. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quicksilver Ventures[edit]

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable venture capital fund. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Created by Special:Contributions/Mdomengeaux with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources. Tera TIX 11:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability, unable to find references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Ellis (lyricist)[edit]

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

can't find anything notable about him online. Doesn't seem to meet WP:Music. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was able to find a newspaper article about his death that refers to him as an educator, but the month of death is correct. I can find confirmation about his song winning a contest in the Wikipedia article about the contest and a Maltese Wiki at http://www.m3p.com.mt/wiki/Festival_Internazzjonali_tal-Kanzunetta_Maltija_1981 , but not in a reliable source. Should the festival's contest as a national event confer notability? Note that there is at least one American musician named John Ellis. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non voting/nom comment) that's why this subject's notabality is so confusing and hard to pinpoint. Too many things don't add up Would a prod be better option?? JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 06:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lyrics of the winning song of the 1981 Malta International Song Festival were written by John Ellis. Inserted a reference. Kittieb (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being the writer of a winning song in a minor music competition does not make him notable. The Times of Malta obituary does not even mention his songwriting and only talks about his teaching career and assisting in church services. The only other source is simply about the song lyrics. The lack of sources on his only claim to fame would fail WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator of the article I agree that it should be deleted. Please feel free to delete it. Kittieb (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One potentially notable song writing credit does not confer notability. If there was an article on the song, would suggest a redirect, but as is, a delete seems to be the only road. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GiveHope[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating again for AFD as I see no real coverage in the year since it was last deleted and the article relies largely on passing mentions, or inclusion in stories such as person xyz gets injured/killed, someone sets up a crowdfunding entry which is really just WP:MILL and not remotely about the subject CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, I didn't nom as I had posted the previous AFD. Just a modicum of coverage about the company itself would satisfy me, but as it stands seems entirely non-notable, especially as many of the refs are hyperlocal news coverage, e.g. Patch is for neighborhoods, so closer to a blog than a big city paper in terms of standards of what's covered. JesseRafe (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The passing coverage referenced in this instance of the article and found by searches is insufficient to reverse my "delete" opinion from the August 2017 AfD. AllyD (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:as per above Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:WEB. No significant coverage from reliable sources. None of the sources cover the website in depth. — Newslinger talk 10:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added an additional news source that covers the company solely and in depth. - Bastetstatue (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A single hyper-local source is not adequate significant in depth coverage. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling i24NEWS 'hyper-local' is a stretch, it's an international news channel. - Bastetstatue (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Coverage is hyper-local, passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON (or never) per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. H/T EM and MLG for the sources ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amora Bettany[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only an interview. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pedro Medeiros (her partner) Vexations (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This person fails WP:BASIC notability guidelines, and I can't find evidence of any significant commentary or independent coverage online at all. Existing links are to trivial coverage and one amateur interview on a small blog. CoronaryKea (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are what you would expect for someone doing their job in that field. Nothing rising to WP:GNG.96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep profiled in reliable Brazilian sources, Epoch, Estadao, Folha de S. Paulo, Capricho (published by Editora Abril), and Vice. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Megalibrarygirl (talk). It could be tagged as a stub so the community can help expanding it. Deleting it just or keeping it as a private draft only excludes more users from collaborating with the article. Brunhildr (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of a few women game designers in Brazil (or, better, one of a few game designers of any gender in Brazil), worked on notable indie games. Reliable sources in Portuguese DanielGSouza (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would withdraw the nomination, but that not possible because there are already a number of support votes, but had the sources that are cited now existed when I reviewed the article, I would never have nominated it. The article in Epocha is clearly significant coverage in an independent, reliable source. Vexations (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apart from all other reliable sources already given, she is also the focus of this long interview in G1 (part of Grupo Globo [9], which is a very clear indicator of notability. Fram (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Moot -- article was also nominated for Speedy Deletion WP:G5, which was completed by an admin on 28 July.(non-admin closure).---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Spirit[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a possibility of meeting WP:BAND criterion #5 by virtue of the studio albums released, but the label doesn't seem to be notable at all. The creator of this article has created a number of other articles about seemingly non-notable metal bands; these should be examined and proposed at AFD also as appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Ellis (musical artist)[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting the general notability requirements or the criteria for musicians. Good faith google search isn't turning up evidence of notability. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a promotional Wiki-article with nebulous claim of notability and no secondary reliable sources to justify inclusion. Article was previously deleted in 2016 for lack of notability; the situation hasn't changed. Originating editor appears to be subject's listed "agent" Kyle Treadwell editing with a clear conflict of interest. --Leflyman^Talk 02:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so confused at why this is happening. All myself and others were trying to do is make the page more credible by adding more sources and now you want to delete a page that has been up for well over two years. When there are many more entries on this site that have fair less credible sources then Corey does.

Our team was simply trying to add items to make his page a better read for visitors with more to engage with and read everything with sources (or what we believe are very credible sources). So please instead of hastily deleting our work understand our intention was to make his page better not get it deleted.

With love (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our notability standards for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a promotional article, which also has an unstated COI issue. Fails WP:GNG with not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, and certainly doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Might consider salting the article, in light of the paid editors comments above, and that fact that it was recreated only a month, using a slightly different dab, after the first article was AfD'd. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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