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. Don't think it quite reaches A7 but WP:SNOW applies. SoWhy 06:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Archer[edit]

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

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

No claim of notability, and the references are trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability--Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - with no assertion of significance, this qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:A7. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, I searched and searched and this clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 19:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found something about him getting some grants from the Barbadian Arts council, but as everyone above points out, there is nothing available in reliable sources to establish GNG.96.127.243.251 (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speedy delete under A7 could've worked. Excelse (talk) 06:49, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mitnick[edit]

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

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

This is a promotional puff article of non-notable lawyer. The sole potential basis for notability is the single line "Mitnick was contracted as an on-air legal analyst for Fox News Channel, Fox Radio Network, and CBS," and that's not sufficient. The quasi-recognitions are either specious ("Lawyers of Distinction", for example, is a marketing scheme that will name pretty much anyone -- or even a dog -- as a "lawyer of distinction" for $475) or simple bar association memberships.

I initially PRODded it; the PROD was reverted by an IP editor with the comment "This is a valid page and is there is an objection to it being deleted. The page is sourced properly and every fact can be verified". To make it very clear, I do not contend that the page is unsourced (although much of it is, that could be a matter for editing). My contention is that the subject is not notable. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Add'l comment by nom: the creating editor seems to have been dormant for several years, but reviewing his edit history, this seems to be a case of at least a WP:COI, and likely WP:UPE. His edits were mostly confined to this article and the four five-times-deleted article Nixle, a company started by Mitnick (and which seems to be equally non-notable). One of his edit summaries ("I have been asked by Craig Mitnick to edit...") makes it clear that he was editing at the behest of the subject of the article. TJRC (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispam. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• i’ve researched the sourcing and my tension is drawn to the company Mitnick Founded which is used by Homeland security. He is a notable lawyer and nationally recognized so there is an objection to the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:3:805::94 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable lawyer. WP:VANISPAM also holds true, The lawyer so far has done nothing that can hit the WP:NBIO. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:10, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manashe Khaimov[edit]

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

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

Proposing for deletion for lack of notability. Tóraí (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable website creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Correa[edit]

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

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

Insufficiently notable child actor; doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Likely WP:TOOSOON. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we need reliable sources on all living people, especially those who are under 12. In this case we have not a single reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some coverage; an interview in a contributed HuffPo piece doesn't help though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) » Shadowowl | talk 20:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Radical Midwives[edit]

Association of Radical Midwives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG and every other notability guideline. No sources. » Shadowowl | talk 22:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG as the topic is covered in sources such as English Midwives and the Association of Radical Midwives and Birth of the radicals. Andrew D. (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which prove nothing more than it exists. The first source only mentions AoRM. » Shadowowl | talk 23:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep given coverage like this here and this. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew D. A ten-page article in Women & Health magazine is very clearly significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 16 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. It appears the reviewers of this nom have found sources and are satisfied that WP:NCORP is met. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 00:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Badagoni[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Created by SPA with same name. » Shadowowl | talk 21:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might not be that easy. The type of account which created the article does not affect notability. I would expect at least a short explanation why the results on Google Scholar and Google News, for example, are not sufficient to establish notability. 1 2 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The SPA from 2007 shouldn't have created an article about itself. However, that in itself is not a reason to delete. The article is short, but again not a reason to delete. Back in 2007, this company very likely wasn't notable. Now, the story is different. There are references to be had out there that attest to the company's notability. They won a silver and three bronze medals at the Decanter World Wine Awards [1], and won best sparkling wine at the prestigious (not my words; see first following link) Asian Wine Review this year [2][3]. Also from [[4]], the company has 600 employees, produce 7.4 million bottles of wine, and are the top wine exporter in Georgia. There's some other refs out there as well [5], and [6] which shows that at the International Wine Challenge 2018, they won 2 silver and 2 bronze medals. In 2018 at the International Wine Awards they won 2 gold and 3 silver medals [7]. 2016 in Tokyo, they won gold [8]. There appear to be a number of articles from which to draw more information and use as references [9]. This is a significant player in the wine industry, and they have the awards to show for it from many places around the world. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, ((cite book)) added, and as mentioned by Hammersoft there are more to add. One of the countries largest producers, a stub like this is merely a question of following WP:ATD-E instead of slamming a deletion tag on it. Sam Sailor 06:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears this winery has more than enough references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Passes WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 22 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Town[edit]

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

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

Unreleased (and as far as anyone can tell, never-to-be-released) film. Film was made in 2008, planned for released in 2009, pushed back to 2011, I think pushed back at least once more. It's now been almost 10 years after it was made and it's still not released, not even direct-to-video. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM; in particular WP:NFF (" films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines.").

Several members of the cast are notable, as is the director Chris Stokes (director) and the (not) distributor Vivendi Entertainment; but their notability is not contagious, and does not appear to extend to this vaporware film. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Coverage consist of routine news with no substantial coverage about the film and it;s lack of release. -- Whpq (talk) 22:48, 21 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Bad relist from a non-admin. Pretty clear consensus. Primefac (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 67 (UK series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 67 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 68 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 69 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 70 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 72 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Now That's What I Call Music! 73 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Per WP:NALBUM guidelines these albums are unlikely to grow much beyond their current status, primarily as track listings and so despite their popularity as compilation albums are unlikely to be individually notable. Recommend delete and redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#United Kingdom and Ireland. Nowhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources on any of them to show they meet WP:GNG, and no indication they charted on a major chart, simply the niche chart for compilation albums, which doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 16:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as long established articles on a notable album series. These sell in the hundred thousands and clearly meet inclusion criteria. I’m also confused as to why only a small set of articles have been nominated, when some are still inappropriate redirects. Aiken D 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to not spam AfD. Being more comprehensive is why I had initially started down the RfC route but went here when that didn't receive support on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all - Yes, according to WP:NALBUM, they "may" be notable to whatever extent we see notability in charting on the compilation albums charts. (Downloading music has largely rendered such charts pretty much meaningless.) That said, these articles are pretty much catalogs of track lists: Here's when it was released, when it charted, how many copies it sold, the track list and a link to the primary source for all of the info. Call it a permanent stub or call it a catalog. There is nothing here to allow us to write reasonably detailed, independently sourced articles on these. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all: let's just state the facts here for a moment. Pretty much every one of the 100 (so far) albums in this series has reached no. 1 on both the UK and Irish compilation charts, and has been certified multi-platinum in the UK at least. Using the first album in this AfD as an example, Now 67, here is the proof of it reaching no. 1 on the UK Compilation Chart [10] and on the Irish Compilation Chart [11]. And here is its BPI certification for shipping double platinum (600,000) copies in the UK [12]. So superficially, two national charts and a certification would appear to pass WP:NALBUM. The big issue that I see here is... that's ALL you can say about this album, and almost all the other albums in the series as well. They don't get reviewed (the last one I remember seeing a review for was Now 5, when they were still a novelty), and there is no meaningful text that you can add, because they rarely get discussed individually in detail – the most recent Now 100 has, but that's because apparently 100 is an important number. And the Compilation Chart is not the main chart in either the UK or in Ireland – reaching no. 1 on this chart is no big deal when MP3 playlists and streaming have consigned the compilation album to oblivion in all other cases. In short, these articles are going to remain permastubs, consisting of a track listing, two sub-chart positions, and a certification. If you keep this, you may as well agree that every other compilation album ever released (not just the Now records) also passes WP:NALBUM and deserves its own article, because they almost certainly will have placings on two national compilation charts and a UK certification as well. Should we keep articles for the individual albums, despite the fact it's a near certainty they will remain forever essentially a track listing with no article text, and never grow beyond what's already there? I just think the chart positions and certifications, which is the only important and verifiable information, can be adequately and better covered in a table on the Now That's What I Call Music! discography page. Richard3120 (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all. user:Richard3120 has very eloquently explained why redirection is the right course of action. I'd just like to throw in a reminder that the guidelines very explicitly state "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." As editors we need to exercise some judgment and not just rotely apply notability criteria and declare that there should be an article. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all. The key element to WP:NALBUMS is not the list of criteria which MAY make the album notable but the statement that the album has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Charting, in and of itself, is not "significant coverage" but just an indication that a lot of people bought these albums but no one is actually talking about these releases. Note that when I started redirecting these, it was AFTER I updated the discography for the UK section with the only sourced info for most of these (the tracklisting from the official Now! website, the chart position, and whatever certification it may have received). The individual pages didn't offer anything else besides this info so I felt the redirects were appropriate and following the precedent set by the recent AfD results for Now 51 and Now 52. Even if there is some additional minimal coverage elsewhere (such as the milestone of reaching 100 volumes), it can be placed in the Now That's What I Call Music! main article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Richard3120 is correct in asserting that these individual NOW articles will probably never progress much beyond a tracklist, since as they are compilations they have no production information or reviews like studio albums. However, I think the point of these articles' value to this encyclopedia has been missed, namely that the NOW series offers a curated benchmark of the most popular music of a particular frame of time (due to the series' longevity and the consistency of their release schedule, as well as their popularity as evidenced by their consistent No 1 chart position). Each individual album article features links to the songs and artists who were considered popular enough for inclusion on the album within that timeframe, many of whom appear only once or twice in the charts before disappearing. In this way, their intrinsic usefulness to the encyclopedia is more akin to that of a WP:LIST. Bob talk 19:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Satisfy NALBUM due to the spectacular level of sales and LISTN per the arguments of Bob Castle above. James500 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all per Richard3120. @James500 and Bob Castle: That the data is useful doesn't indicate notability, and since the track lists are arbitrarily curated by Sony/Universal WP:LISTN can't really be used as justification for their existence. The track listings can be stored on Wikidata (although this would require the creation of new items for some of the songs if they're different to the originals); they qualify for Wikidata notability because it is verifiable that all of these albums exist and they all have identifiers in external databases. Jc86035 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all as they're fairly useless unless there is more significant coverage per article. The songs individually are all notable since it's basically a top-40 compilation but a bazillion tracklistings are utterly worthless. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all Great points so far that I'd, frankly, never given much thought to. Allowing all of these "NOW (xx)!" albums to have their own article opens up a rather large can of worms, in my opinion. Strikerforce^Talk 19:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure why this was relisted. There appears to be a consensus to redirect all. Strikerforce^Talk 21:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Striker here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Haud Al-Marsoud Hospital[edit]

Al-Haud Al-Marsoud Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NHOSPITALS and reads like a directory. Could not find sourcing outside the area. AmericanAir88 (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The history narrates a pile of nonsensical trivial facts about the hospital that is not encyclopaedic in any sense. And none of the reference given and available are solid at all. EROS ^message 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments given. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MotionVR[edit]

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

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

unlikely notability fgnievinski (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The first citation makes no mention of the subject, the second is dead and cannot be evaluated. I am unable to any find further substantial coverage in WP:RS, though there are a couple of youtube videos titled with the keywords, and I found citation in conference proceedings in scholar search as well as several Japanese/Korean sources that I am unable to evaluate fully. I am prepared to change my !vote if someone thinks that they are more than passing mentions.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opposition, reasonable arguments. Primefac (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahdi Fakhimi[edit]

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

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

A close look at sources on the page combine my searches to indicate that he fails WP:SIGCOV . Subject does not qualify for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anbaa (Iraq)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NNEWSPAPER and WP:NCORP. » Shadowowl | talk 20:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's plenty of coverage of the unrelated paper in Kuwait, but I've found nothing about this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frosted Orange (South African band)[edit]

Frosted Orange (South African band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable South African band, couldn't find good references to support notability. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Redirecting to Albert Frost (South African musician) is a remote possibility, except there is at least one other band with the same name, while the search term could also apply to Frosted orange moth. For this band specifically, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate that they have achieved notability beyond their own self-promotional efforts. Also note that the band history as stated (brielfy) in this article does not correspond to this: [13]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PATENTEM[edit]

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

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

A non-notable software product. No consensus in the first AFD. Of the three references, one is from 1993 (over a decade pre-dating the company), one is a company-produced video, and one is in Ukrainian and doesn't appear to mention the product. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sourcing has not improved since my comment in the last AfD. Pavlor (talk) 09:08, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gawkbox[edit]

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

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

The references point to a press release (or perhaps routine coverage) , an unreliable source, and a passing mention. Seems to fall far short of corporate notability requirements. A preliminary WP:BEFORE only uncovered more press releases. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's coverage, but it is all routine announcements mostly related to funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too soon, too little content, too few refs. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources provided are Not independent. Fails WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No reason to drag this out. Borderline G11. Randykitty (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Reidenbach[edit]

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

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

actually pretty sure this is an A7, but an admin disagreed. Radically fails WP:GNG, pretty much a vanity piece, and it seems a UPE vanity piece at that John from Idegon (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. He fails my standards for notable lawyers; in fact, from what's in the article, I don't see that he's done even a single act that enables him to be notable. Lawyers are supposed to get quick verdicts; I once got a (fairly small, bench) verdict immediately. in less than six minutes. More broadly, the sources are less than stellar (American Executive Centers? or Business Review- nice, but I've been in them twice - and his college alumni newsletter). When he gets elected chair of Bar Association board, or chairs the Villanova alumni association, or serves on a state commission, then we can reconsider. Until then, this is spam, posted in violation of our charter as a not for profit and our internal rules. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sorely fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. This attempt at a Wiki article reeks of a public relations puff piece. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a collection of trivia and truly minor distinctions, nothing even close to notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity piece for a non-notable lawyer and former eleven-year-old baseball wannabe. TJRC (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly not A7 but G11; a lot of sub-trivia information. A lawyer with no significant coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing particularly notable about this lawyer. Looks like a promotional piece. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:25, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers planets[edit]

List of Power Rangers planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Like the article deleted in 2008, it consists almost entirely of planets that appear in single episodes. Poorly sourced, incomplete (according to Wikia), no indication of notability, and appears to fail WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non notable WP:LISTCRUFT Dom from Paris (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd argue that is as notable as List of Star Wars planets and List of Star Trek planets. Power Rangers is a 25 year old franchise of great significance and a list of the various primary locations in across the franchise is notable.
• DELETE - WP:FANCRUFT that belongs to Wikia FANDOM! Acnetj (talk) 20:15, 17 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. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional crime bosses and gang leaders[edit]

List of fictional crime bosses and gang leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Suffers from same issues as List of fictional gangs. Entirely WP:OR, and filled with cruft. Better served by Category:Fictional crime bosses. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We already have Category:Fictional crime bosses, the list isn't necessary. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you want to sleep with the fishes, please see WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Like Lugnuts says, WP:CLN says that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there is a category is not why this article was nominated for deletion. I am not unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia and I know that categories can exist alongside lists. However, this WP:LISTCRUFT does not add anything of note. It is doubtful a convincing argument can be made for just why this list is required instead of simply having a category/categories._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one needs to show that anything is "required"; that's simply not a meaningful expectation. Content merely needs to be compliant.

      "...this...does not add anything of note." It's already annotated with the works in which these characters originate, and subdivided by medium. Neither can be done in the category. Your rationale does not appear to be based on a careful or thoughtful view of the content, nor for that matter, the relevant guidelines, because WP:NOTDUP does not require any special case to be made for why we would have a list as well as a category. The whole point of that guideline is that editors have different preferences and each format inherently has unique benefits. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as complement to category per WP:CLN and as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP. Whether the individual characters need their own articles to merit inclusion here, or is it enough that the depicting work is notable, is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion to resolve. The OR complaint is without foundation (currently lacking secondary sources is not the same thing at all), leaving this an empty nomination. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Postdlf and Andrew D. The existence of a character within a story is basic information about that story which can be sourced to the story itself. My inclination would be that "the depicting work is notable" is a sufficient criterion to keep the list manageable. A reasonable inclusion criterion exists, and so keeping the list from becoming indiscriminate is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 16 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Taste[edit]

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

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

The references listed appear to be predominately from a single source, are interviews, or don't discuss the subject in depth. I took a cursory look for more coverage, but couldn't unearth much more to satisfy WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although not entirely relevant, the disclosed (thanks!) paid editor is a single purpose account.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More references have been added. currently at 20 sources and it's clear that these are multiple sources with the predominant one being The Straits Times, Singapore's main newspaper. Multiple news sources discuss the subject in depth e.g.Prima Taste’s ready-meals meant to change perceptions on convenience food. Please take a look again.--Jewellynnz (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Finding sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability is difficult for organizations/companies since most "news", while published by independent and reliable source, is not, in fact, original content as it relies on company announcements or interviews/quotations from company officers, etc. As per WP:ORGIND - Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the added references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - needs independent sources, no PR please. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:38, 20 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. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Glassman[edit]

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

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

Non-notable politician. Held a low level political office on two occasions that does not rise to the level of WP:NPOL. Sources do not establish WP:GNG. She lost the primary election yesterday, so it's not even WP:TOOSOON, there's no indication she will become notable. I wouldn't object to redirecting it, but I wouldn't object to deletion either. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some additional material and references.

  The nomination asserts "...does not rise to the level of WP:NPOL. Sources do not establish WP:GNG."

  Hmmm. Usually, in discussions of failed candidates, those arguing for delete assert every important candidate for election will have local papers cover the candidates local appearances, local endorsements, positions on local issues, and, since every candidate gets this kind of coverage, it does not establish wikipedia notability.

  In my opinion, it is a mistake to ignore ALL local reporting as mundane. Some local reporting can be of the exceptional kind, that established notability. If the failed candidate had reporting that they were the first Gay candidate, first disabled candidate, etc, I think that establishes some notability.

  So far I haven't seen any coverage like that, for Glassman. But one of the additional references I added was to an article about Glassman in Politico, an important media resource on American National politics. National, not local, so establishing some wikipedia notability. Further, the article asserts something exceptional, that the US Chamber of Commerce's endorsement of her was a very rare phenomenon, as the Chamber hadn't endorsed a candidate in a Primay for 8 years. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was adding coverage of HOW A STUNNING UPSET AT A CONGRESSIONAL CONVENTION LED TO CALLS FOR A VOTE-TAMPERING INVESTIGATION when my computer crashed, and I lost my work. I don't have time to re-add it today. So I strongly recommend anyone inclined to accept at face value the assumption this nomination complies with WP:BEFORE take a look at it first.

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I don't think that much matters because that Intercept piece, like all of the other ones, is about the election, not the candidate in the election. Same with the Politico piece, it's about an organization endorsing a candidate. Hardly in-depth coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The individuals we cover are notable primarily for the things they do, and say, and the events where they play a meaningful role.

      Some deletionists argue for the deletion of articles on individuals when they lack biographical details, like year of birth, where they studied, where they were born. But everyone is born, practically everyone goes to school. Clarification please -- is this what you mean by "in-depth coverage"?

      My go to counter-example is False Geber, who Isaac Asimov included in his Biographical Encyclopedia of Science. False Geber was a medieval figure who was the first to describe how to make Sulfuric Acid.

      I call him the first sockpuppet, writing under a false name, the name of someone already famous. So we don't know his date of birth, nationality, occupation, or even where he lived. We know absolutely nothing about him. Nevertheless, he measures up to our notability criteria.

      If you are arguing for the deletion of this article because of a lack of in-depth coverage of Glassman, could you please be specific as to what you think is missing? The Intercept said where she worked. The article already says who she was married to. Frankly, I didn't look at the coverage of her in the local Connecticut papers, as I anticipated those arguing for delete would dismiss them all as mere local coverage. But it is likely that they would cover her age, education, birthplace.

      So, help us out, what is it you think is missing? Geo Swan (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's missing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article cites her campaign website. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Muboshgu, didn't you say you tried to comply with BEFORE? Didn't you say -- immediately below you only found one reference (from the Connecticut Mirror) [14] that provided solid in-depth coverage?

          But now you seem to be focussing solely on the references that have already been included in the article... Sorry, in my opinion this falls short of compliance with BEFORE.

          I found other references that provided meaningful coverage of Glassman, and I will list some of them below.

          In my independent search for references about Glassman I concluded she is not someone known for a single event.

          In the independent web search you conducted, before you nominated this article, did you read about Glassman's controversial resignation from her eighth term as Simsbury's First Selectman? In her 8th term the Republican had a supermajority on the city council. City Council then took two controversial steps: they removed key responsibilities from the office of First Selectman, and assigned them to other members of the Council; because the position of First Selectman now had significantly reduced responsibilities they reduced her salary by one third. Glassman resigned - over the sudden and arbitrary removal of authority, not over salary, she said. After accepting her resignation Council restored the First Selectman's salary... So, did this generate significant news coverage? Yes. It is one of the reasons Glassman is not someone known for a single event.

          Between her first four terms as First Selectman and her second four terms as First Selectman Glassman (1) served as a lobbyist; (2) held senior positions in Connecticut's State government, including the Lieutenant Governor's Chief of Staff. Does being a lobbyist or serving in one's State government establish any notability? Maybe not. In general it depends on whether those activities generate any press coverage. Glassman's activities as a lobbyist and member of State government did achieve some press coverage.

          Only a limited number of individuals we cover have their notability established by a single factor. Individuals who haven't measured up to a special purpose notability guideline, like for winning a Victoria Cross, or holding a State or Federal office, have their notability established by GNG. I suggest that GNG should be observed by fairly adding up the cumulative notability established by notability factors. Almost none of the notability factors of most individuals would establish their notability, all by itself. Most GNG individuals have their notability established by adding up all the notability factors.

          Glassman has multiple notability factors. Geo Swan (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

some other independent references that provide more than passing mentions of Glassman...

# of paragraphs	date	reference
29 of 29	2014-12-31	Kristin Stoller (2014-12-31). "Glassman Ready To Start New Chapter After 16 Years As Simsbury First Selectman". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2018-08-17. Retrieved 2018-08-18. Glassman, a former newspaper reporter and lawyer, was tapped to be the Democratic candidate for first selectman six weeks before the 1991 election because the original candidate dropped out. In a surprising turn of events, Glassman won and served from 1991 to 1999 and again from 2007 to 2014.
12 of 12	2013-10-28	John Fitts (2013-10-28). "Meet the Candidate: Mary Glassman for First Selectman". Patch magazine. Archived from the original on 2018-08-18. Mary holds a journalism degree from the University of Connecticut with a law degree from the University Of Connecticut School Of Law.
12 of 12	2015-02-06	Kristin Stoller (2015-02-06). "CREC Hires Former Simsbury First Selectman Mary Glassman". Hartford Courant. Simsbury, Connecticut. Archived from the original on 2018-08-22. Glassman will be paid $135,000 in her new position at CREC, said communications specialist Amanda Falcone. When she resigned as first selectman, Glassman's salary was $113,850 — a salary that she had frozen herself since taking office in 2008.
7 of 7	2018-04-03	Daniela Altimari (2018-04-03). "Mary Glassman Says She'll Be a Consensus-Builder in Washington". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2018-04-03. Retrieved 2018-08-18. Glassman is a familiar face in Connecticut politics. In addition to two stints as Simsbury's chief elected officer, she twice sought the post of lieutenant governor. In 2006, Glassman ran on a ticket with Dannel P. Malloy. (She won a primary, but Malloy lost.) In 2010, Glassman joined forces with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont but their ticket lost to Malloy and Lt. Gov. Nancy Wynman.
18 of 24	2014-12-08	Kristin Stoller (2014-12-08). "Selectmen Reverse Pay Cut, Accept Glassman's Resignation". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2015-08-02. Retrieved 2018-08-18. The Republicans' decision to move up the reduction in the first selectman's salary by six months and Glassman's resignation had been roundly criticized by many residents.
21 of 25	2014-12-01	Kristin Stoller (2014-12-01). "Simsbury First Selectman Glassman Resigns Over Salary Cut". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2018-08-18. Glassman, a Democrat, called the board's decision last week to cut her pay from $113,850 to $75,000, effective in July, 'illegal,' and said the vote should 'trouble the people of Simsbury.'
11 of 41	2018-05-18	Mark Pazniokas (2018-05-18). "A collision of insider politics, open primaries and race". Connecticut Mirror. Archived from the original on 2018-08-17. Retrieved 2018-08-18. Now, five days later as the Democrats open their two-day convention, a political debut that could have been a feel-good moment for Democrats, no matter who ultimately wins the nomination in a primary in August, has turned into something else, with angry questions from the NAACP about the motives for the vote-switching away from a black woman, resentment from some Glassman delegates about Murphy's involvement — and just a whiff of a voting irregularity.

• And of course I followed WP:BEFORE. This piece is solid in-depth coverage, but it's the only one I found. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad you did your own independent search for references, and weren't just relying on those the article already used. My point was you used wording open to the interpretation your nomination was based solely on the references used -- unfortunately a common practice at AFD nowadays.

    The reference you linked to, a July 26th profile, in the Hartford Courant... It is full of biographical details. You wrote that it was the only one you found. Does this mean you are disputing its accuracy, independence, reliability? We don't require every reference contain every point in our article that requires substantiation. We routinely add references to articles that add substantion for just one single fact. Geo Swan (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Hartford Courant piece is great. I am saying that it and the other cited sources do not clear the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One in-depth piece and coverage of the election isn't "significant". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete respectable public service career, but no major offices held, non extraordinary coverage on the national level, no notability outside political career, and she just lost her primary to the Party nomination.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I agree with the above discussion, but she might be notable as a perennial candidate. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bearian: There's nothing in NPOL about perennial candidates. Either there is sourcing for a page (which some perennial candidates get, others don't) or there isn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not objecting to its deletion. I just think there might be coverage that, as a whole over several campaigns, could be considered significant enough to push her over the bar. Reasonable editors could disagree, hence "weak keep". Bearian (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But.... any form of "keep" vote means you object to its deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak delete per WP:DEADHORSE. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upon review I don't see any sources that help her pass WP:GNG as being independently notable from her campaigns, or showing her campaigns were particularly noteworthy. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unelected candidates are not notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, as a very prolific contributor here, you must know this is not what the relevant guideline says. Officeholders at the Federal or State/Province level only have to measure up to the notability criteria established through WP:POLITICIAN. The notability of failed candidates, perennial candidates, and Municipal candidates has to be determined through a fair deliberation of whether they measure up to WP:GNG. No wikidocument says "unelected candidates are not notable."

    Could you work harder at making sure you follow your opinions with a policy-based explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unelected candidates are not notable for being such, and it takes an awful lot of coverage for them to be notable for anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that as a named location that has had its existence proved, notability is demonstrated under GEOLAND (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kharahal[edit]

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

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale highlighted this location as "not a notable place". No comment from me on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, like other geographic features. I added this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This valley satisfies GEOLAND as a named natural feature. Coverage in GNews. James500 (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per eastmain addition of the ref. Passes GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 12:31, 16 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. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of world three-cushion billiards champions[edit]

List of world three-cushion billiards champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article doesn't provide sufficient context for the tournament at hand. There is an article at UMB World Three-cushion Championship, which lists championships, but I am unsure how this is related to that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirect and Merge Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. Article can and should be expanded, but WP:Deletion is a Draconian and unwarranted result. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to UMB World Three-cushion Championship which has a full list of the official world champions. Allow recreation of this separate list if necesary to include pre-UMB champions, but no reason at the moment to keep the current highly inadequate list instead of sending people to the much better UMB article. Fram (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, the deletion prospect article, has sourced information regarding winners that are different from the target article. I have no idea if this is the same tournament at this stage. For instance, 1931 has Arthur Thurnblad winning, but the target has Enrique Miró winning (also sourced). 54 is listed as being won by Harold Worst, but the target has no such tournament existing. It's rather confusing, but as the article has no context, it's impossible to know what it is referring to. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:BEFORE failure. Context can be added; that's just basic MOS:LEAD work. The key problem with the merge idea is that the list is inclusive of non-UMB titles. Now that we have sectional transclusion, we can actually make the UMB and BWCA lists be complete and appear in different articles as-needed, along with their citations. Another problem with merging this article out of existence or simply deleting it is that it would eliminate the encyclopedically useful comparison/contrast of different (BWCA and UMB) claimants to world-championship titles in the same year. This article isn't weird or faulty in any conceptual way, but standard operating procedure. Just needs some work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasoning of SMcCandlish He thought it through and apparently know what he is talking about. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. Relist it. Consensus was clear already, so relisting was unneeded. But I welcome additional comments and commentators. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Olatorera Oniru[edit]

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

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

Page created by confirmed sockpuppet. Claims for significance are working for Fortune 500 companies and for "dressmeoutlet.com" which is an ecommerce site that she created (wikipedia article was also created for dressmeoutlet.com and was deleted as non-significant".

She has a mention on the Forbes website via their self-publishing feature. If you look at the authors contributions on the Forbes site, they are all poor-quality articles written in flowery language.

Awards are suspect, but I welcome discussion. PabloMartinez (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 11:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; nn as either a "business mogul" nor a "development speaker". Bio-spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 20 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard S. Kirby[edit]

Richard S. Kirby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see no basis for notability. The best I find is a discussion on a futurist message board after his death, and he got an obituary in his hometown newspaper making elaborate claims (link now dead), plus one in a larger regional paper (which I only find on copyvio sites so I won't link) that says almost nothing about him except personal details - birth, death, occupation, family, services. Marked for want of notability since 2009. It fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. Claimed president of a non-accredited private 'college' that seems non-notable and would not contribute to his notability. There may be something out there I didn't find amidst all the other people of the same name, but I am not seeing anything that would merit coverage on Wikipedia. Essentially an orphan - the only pages pointing here are redirects and lists. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I haven't been able to find anything to suggest that he qualifies under any notability guideline. The books he wrote do not appear to be notable, failing WP:AUTHOR, and there does not appear to be anything significant about the Kepler Academy he was president of, failing WP:NACADEMIC. Also failing WP:GNG in the sources. Hzh (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This weasel language filled hagiography does not show any notability as we see it. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian and have attended classes at the General Seminary. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 15 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 Defense of the Ancients. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 00:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Feak[edit]

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

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

Feak designed DotA and ran DotA-Allstars for some time, but is not known for much more nor is he know pretty well. Check reliable Video Game sources only returns "Guinsoo designed DotA" or "Feak was hired by Riot", that's pretty much it, though. Lordtobi (✉) 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to a redirect to Defense of the Ancients. --Izno (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Defense of the Ancients. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Izno. There's insufficient RS to sustain a standalone BLP but people might search for the name. Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 21 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mattiazzi[edit]

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

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

This person does not appear to be notable and the article and references are trivial and don't support notability Sargdub (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, and the article reads like Ms Mattiazzi's official bio. As she isn't a terribly senior officer in the bank, there's no reason to think that she would meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. "Head of Asia Business Development" is not a level of corporate advancement to presume notability. Bio-spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The option to merge was rather firmly rejected. Primefac (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Pyari Gurjar (The Lady Chieftain)[edit]

Ram Pyari Gurjar (The Lady Chieftain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a myth popularized by sources affiliated to the Gurjar community, and a non-notable one, as evidence from lack of coverage in reliable sources. No reliable history book that mentions this person. A Wikipedia article once existed on this person, but was PROD-ded as hoax (see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 60#Ram Pyari Gurjar). The sources cited in the current article are Wikipedia mirrors and/or unreliable:

• Betascript Publishing book: Wikipedia mirror, as noted at OmniScriptum#Wikipedia_content
• Ram Pyari Gurjar by Ronald Cohn, Jesse Russell: Another Wikipedia mirror - see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#VSD
• Timur invaded India by Jesse Russell , Ronald Cohn - same as above
• World Heritage Encyclopedia - Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#World Heritage Encyclopedia
• The Popular Indian - non-notable blog, not even close to WP:RS. The note at the end of the blog post counts Wikipedia as one of the sources for the article ("विकिपीडिया से जुटाई गयी सामग्री पर आधारित है").

utcursch | talk 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC) utcursch | talk 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and mark as hoax. Looks like this has been going on since 2015![15] Adding this to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia may also be helpful. Gilded Snail (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Nothing in reliable source(s).There's a hit at this book but am uncertain about the reliability of the publishing house or the credentials of the author.∯WBG^converse 10:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Winged Blades of Godric: Nau Nihal Singh's The Royal Gurjars is aimed at glorification of the Gurjar / Gujjar community, and is not WP:HISTRS / WP:RS-compliant. For example, it claims that Porus was a Gurjar king who defeated Alexander. Quote from pages 331-332: "Greek King Alexander defeated Iran and set the Iranian capital Porsipolice on five. Thereafter in 326 BC he invaded Indian borders. In the battle with Indian army he was wounded by an arrow and he had to take shelter of Nand Mahar. He was so much impressed by his hospitality that he went back from there. However, this invasion by Alexander opened the door for foreign invasion on India. Porus Maloe who fought bravely wiih Alexander and defeated him and Nand Mahar who offered hospitality to him when he was wounded were both Gurjars." utcursch | talk 20:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That speaks volumes:-)∯WBG^converse 04:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I have tidied this up. If any of it is verifiable, it might be worth keeping, but we cannot have material sourced only from WP mirrors. If kept it should be at Ram Pyari Gurjar. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge and Redirect with Gurjar Comment Since the nom says "It is a popular Myth" so why cant the article be kept as such ? Apart from what has already been presented it is hard to find sources in English. More sources might be in hindi, That supports this myth theory. I was able to find a newspaper article[16] and the hindi Wikipage रामप्यारी_चौहान_गुर्जर (Which I linked) also has some hindi sources as references. Based on these sources I am inclined to keep it and also create a redirect Rampyari Gurjar --DBigXray 14:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources: it fails WP:GNG. The only semi-decent website that covers this topic is Patrika.com, but its articles are not reliable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, because they present this topic as authentic history rather than as a myth / hoax.

  • This Patrika article by Rajkumar Pal cites "many writers who wrote on Jat history" as its source: It claims that the army of the "Jat Sarvkhap Mahapanchayat" defeated Timur's 90,000-strong cavalry, and Timur died from the wounds sustained in this war.
  • This Parika slide show by Yuvraj Singh cites Swami Omanand Saraswati as it source. Singh doesn't mention a specific article / book, but that doesn't matter anyway, because Omanand was not a qualified historian: he was a Jat Arya Samaj leader (see below). The slide show claims that Jograj was a 7 feet 9 inch tall Gurjar warrior, who weighed 320 kg. His army supposedly included 40,000 women from Gurjar, Jat, Ahir, Rajput, Harijan, Valmiki, Tyagi and other castes. The courage of Ram Pyari, the 20-year old commander of this female contingent is said to have frightened Timur, whose army was ultimately forced to flee the battlefield.

  These articles talk of a 14th century army that included 40,000 women, and that forced Timur to flee India. If this topic were notable, it would have found a mention in more reliable sources, even if it were legendary in nature.

  The Hindi Wikipedia articles "महाबली जोगराज सिंह गुर्जर" and "रामप्यारी चौहान गुर्जरी" are themselves poorly-sourced (and tagged as such).

  • mihirbhojnayidishagroup.blogspot.com - not a reliable source
  • veergurjarmahasabha.com - Gurjar caste association website, not a reliable source
  • snipview.com - inlcudes snippets of Wikipedia articles, not reliable per WP:CIRCULAR
  • cyclopaedia.info - another Wikipedia mirror
  • [17] is a dead link, and not reliable anyway
  • [18] is Jatland, a wiki whose editors left Wikipedia after their edits were undone here, and the sources they were citing were deemed unreliable here (see example below)
  • History of Origin of Some Clans in India by Mangal Sen Jindal - a pseudo-history book, which claims that Jutland is the homeland of Jats, the word "Germany" derives from Sanskrit "ग्रामनी" etc. Of course, you can read it on Jatland.
  • Rise of the Jat power by Rajpal Singh: Doesn't seem to mention any Jograj or Ram Pyari. The book is chiefly about the Bharatpur State. It briefly describes Timur's invasion on page 10, and does not mention that any Indian army defeated him.
  • Conquest of Tamerlane by Cothburn O'Neal: Another fake ref. The book doesn't mention Jograj or Ram Pyari.
  • Articles of Swami Omanand: No specific articles are mentioned, but as mentioned above, Omanand's writings are not reliable sources. Here are some claims from his books:
    • [19] Because of political reasons such as persecution by Vishnu, the Sumali-led Rakshasas of Lanka migrated to patala which is same as the Americas. These Rakshasa spread the Vedic culture in the Americas, and the Native Americans are their descendants. Quetzalcoatl is related to the Sanskrit word "सालकटंकट ".
    • [20] The humans originated in Tibet, which was a part of India, but the cunning British separated it from India... Indian wrestlers are inferior to the Iranian wrestlers, because they drink buffalo milk instead of cow milk
    • [21]: In the ancient times, Haryana was a matchless heaven-like country full of prosperity and devoid of violence. In 1857, the people of Haryana were the first ones to rebel against the British. As a punishment, the British looters divided the united Haryana into various parts, which were merged with UP, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Delhi.

  I kid you not - Omanand presents all this as authentic history, not mythology or legends. I'm unable to find his book which supposedly mentions Jograj and Ram Pyari, but I'm pretty sure that it is on par with the the above in terms of reliability.

  When reliable sources start covering Jograj and Ram Pyari, we can have an article on them, presenting them as legendary characters. utcursch | talk 19:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gurjar. Hi utcursch, thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate your efforts here. Lets not get into WP:ANALYSIS of sources. The subject is a valid search term and has decent coverage. I do agree that it may not be notable on itself but valid WP:ATD exists here, in the form of caste article Gurjar where this can be merged. --DBigXray 22:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolding duplicate suggestion per RfC format, in order to avoid confusion. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why, pray tell, should we not discuss and analyze sources? Why, when Wikipedia is based on sources more than anything else? I believe we should rather stick with sources, if you don't mind. User utcursch did excellent work here. It cannot be ignored. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that nominator's comment above is delving into a critique of the books. which is beyond the scope of us as wiki editors. If you have sources of actual Critiques of the books/articles that say that this book is using myth as a history or something that you are claiming above, I might agree. At this point I am not going to argue if she was from History or Mythology, that is for the historians to decide upon (and not this AfD). Our discussion on this AfD is on the notability of the subject. My only point here on this AfD is that the subject is notable "enough for a redirect" due to the coverage and hence deserves a WP:REDIRECT per WP:R#KEEP--DBigXray 15:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per reasoning above by nominator --Adamstraw99 (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Requesting a Relist since there is now a valid WP:ATD to merge to Gurjar that I suggested today on the last day of the AfD . --DBigXray 22:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and per utcursch's forensic work above. There is next to nothing that can be used to Merge, actually. If there was something of substance here, it'd have been kept as an independent article. So, no case for WP:ATD can be made. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The notability threshold for an individual article vs merge are not the same. Rampyari Gurjar have enough coverage to merit a merge to Gurjar Some more Book sources about the subject by different authors here. ^[1][2]--DBigXray 13:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Below a threshold of notability that's determined by consensus, when notability is in doubt, the subject generally does not deserve a stand-alone article about it. Above that threshold, is generally does. If it can't reach the threshold but is related to another article's subject, it can generally be merged into it. This is from policy. WP:MERGEREASON states that pages (articles) are merged if a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, at which point it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. We also learn that merge is advisable if a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it. Notability is paramount at all times.

The contested text possesses no attributes useful for a merge. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject has enough coverage (as linked above) to merit a mention in the article on her Clan. Merge and Redirect per WP:R#KEEP is a valid WP:ATD here. --DBigXray 15:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough coverage" is not sufficient: "Enough coverage in reliable sources" is required. Both "गुर्जर वीर-वीरांगनाएं" (Gurjara vīra-vīrāṅganāeṃ) and "गुर्जर काल-चक्र" (Gurjara kāla cakra) are caste glorifying books that are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Here are some quotes from Gurjara kāla cakra:

• "यह तो सच है की गुर्जरों का महान राज्य दो बी.सी. से लेकर बारहवीं सदी संसार के अधिक तर भागों पर रहा है" (p. 18): "It's true that the great rule of the Gurjars existed on most parts of the world between 2 BC to the 12th century")
• "उस समय गुर्जरों के राज्य दक्षिण भारत तक फैल चुके थे... बाद में चोला गुर्जर सल्तनत स्थापित हो गयी" (p. 58), "चौला (गुर्जर) राजा-राजा [sic] दक्षिण में राज करते थे" (p. 35): "By that time, the Gurjar kingdoms had spread to South India... subsequently, Chola Gurjar Sultanate was established", "Chola (Gurjar) king Rajaraja ruled in the South"
• Gurjara kāla cakra (p. 56): "सच्चाई तो यह है कि विक्रमादित्य भी तोरमण मिहिरकुल की तरह एक गुर्जर महाराजा था।". Translation: "The truth is that Vikramaditya, like Toramana Mihirakula, was a Gurjar king"
• A cursory look at Gurjara vīra-vīrāṅganāeṃ suggests that it falls in the same category. For example, p. 14 describes Kanishka as a Raghuvanshi descended from Kusha, and p. 39 claims that Bhoja was a Gurjar.

Suppose, we ignore all above arguments, and decide to merge this article to Gurjar. What do you propose to write in the article "Gurjar"?

• "Ram Pyari Gurjar is a mythical Gurjar warrior": This statement is not supported by any source, because no scholarly / academic book has covered this topic (unlike, say, Agrasen, whom Agrawal authors often describe as a historical person, but who is also covered in the reliable sources that clearly call him a legendary / mythical king.)
• "Ram Pyari Gurjar was a historical warrior who fought against Timur": this is not supported by any reliable source. The books that do mention Ram Pyari Gurjar also claim that Porus was a Gurjar king who defeated Alexander or that everyone from Vikramaditya to Rajaraja Chola were Gurjars -- they are not reliable sources.

The problem is not that Ram Pyari Gurjar has not been covered by any sources: the problem is that she has not been covered by reliable sources. utcursch | talk 17:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing presents this person as an authentic historical person. The article is written in factual tone, and verifiability matters. This article is not verified by reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Now Delete -- It is clear from utcursch's research that the article concerns a person, who either did not exist, or is a literary invention; and certainly NN. I cannot support a redirect (1) because the target does not mention this person and (2) because it is too easy for it to be reinstated as a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have changed my ! vote above in favour of the consensus. The Article author (now banned) is another problem that led to this decision. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. SoWhy 19:21, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry[edit]

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

More Jesuit-spam by a COI-afflicted-editor.Not a single independent non-catholic source.Fails WP:NCORP.Our Sunday Visitor is not an independent source.The previous AFD closer seems to have a serious lack of argument-weighing-skills.That would have been a NC, given the rubbish arguments. ∯WBG^converse 16:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With what objectivity do you determine that "Our Sunday Visitor" is not an independent source. Would you like to rule out all Catholic sources as dependent on this ministry? Our Sunday Visitor is credibly the largest circulation English language Catholic publisher in the world, unless you can produce another candidate for that honor. It appears in most of our churches each Sunday. So what about the sources below that informed others' decision on the article?

• 1.Lori Hadacek Chaplin (July 3, 2017). "Prison Ministry: From Convict to the Diaconate". Catholic Digest. Retrieved May 12, 2018.
• 2. "Freedom behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 12, 2018.
• 3. Company. "Deacons see prison ministry as blessing behind bars". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018.
• 4. "Dismas Ministry: Spreading God's Word in prisons". Angelus News. Retrieved May 19, 2018.
• 5. Everett, Paul F. (2005). The Prisoner: An Invitation to Hope. New York: Paulist Press. p. 180. ISBN 9780809143016.
• 6. Amy E. Rewolinski (September 1, 2010). "Dismas Ministry celebrates 10 years". Catholic Herald. Milwaukee. Retrieved May 13, 2018.
• 7. "Dismas Ministry". Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved May 19, 2018.

Jzsj (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is, at best, no consensus, that Our Sunday Visitor is not a reliable source. See WP:RSN discussion 1, WP:RSN discussion 2 and, more generally, WP:POVSOURCE. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, i note that the result of the 1st afd was a keep, most of the editors involved in that, and King of Hearts, the closing admin, didn't appear to have issues with the use of (some) catholic sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, for now - I haven't the time right now to adequately research this, but I find it hard to believe that this ministry has not been discussed in some reliable source not connected to the Catholic Church. If I can find any or someone comes up with something, I'll be on the keep side here. Jzsj, please edit your comments above so they can be read. Also, please, come to grips with the notion that if your only references are to church published sources, you have not shown notability. Organizations, whether for-profit or non-profit are subject to the same requirements, that being that there exist enough sources totally independent of the subject to support all the facts needed to write an article. Pretty obviously, a magazine published by the Catholic Church is not independent of a ministry of the Catholic Church. And circulation is irrelevant. The National Enquirer has a huge circulation, but I doubt anyone would advocate that as a reliable source. No one is saying you cannot use a source like Our Sunday Visitor to source some facts, only that it does nothing to establish notability. You wouldn't want our article on the Corvette to be sourced exclusively to material published by General Motors, would you? How is it different if we are talking about some facet of the Catholic Church? John from Idegon (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that every line in an article has to be supported by an independent source seems to me to not be actual policy in Wikipedia. Usually where there is no reason to question a statement from an organization's website the statement may be referenced to the organization. Is it only a select few articles that this criterion is applied more rigorously to?... Or are all independently published books assumed to be more objective than an organization's website, where misleading statements would expose them to criticism. I understand that an article cannot be referenced "exclusively", as you say, to dependent sources. I find that some agree with me above that there's sufficient independence in the 7 references listed. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that Catholic media are never an independent source for verifying what Catholic organizations are about. Others have seemed to agree with me.

As I read over my comments above, I am a loss to figure out which can't "be read". Please specify which you find confusing and I will clarify. Jzsj (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I find "confusing", which is yet another of many examples of you blaming your incompetence on others; your idiosyncratic method of presenting a numbered list is unreadable on a small format device such as a tablet or a phone. The majority of page views in Wikipedia are made from small format devices, so this is not an insignificant issue. Please do it correctly. It is only to your benefit to do so, as the information you present there cannot be considered if it cannot be read. Also, if you read the above comments, no one has agreed with you, they've simply pointed out that a) one of your sources may be reliable (which is not the question, independence is) and b) that in the previous discussion, some others agreed with you (and that statement was qualified). Note neither of them !voted to keep, and note that I have not !voted to delete. So rather than make ineffectual appeal to emotion arguments that fail to address my arguments in any way (in fact, twisting what I said around to fit your ineffectual argument), why don't you just go find some sources that are unquestionably independent and solve the problem? John from Idegon (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was one very good totally independent source mentioned in the prior AfD. And that source mentioned another source. Just saying, rather than fighting what seems to me, and to at least two other editors, to be an absolutely ridiculous battle to somehow prove that the Catholic Church is independent of the Catholic Church, how about you do some research and WP:HEYMAN your own article? John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pursuing this. In using the list of references I was following a custom that I've seen used many times before: thanks for clarifying what you meant by "edit" here. I'll keep that in mind. I'm not attributing to you all the bit on independence, but was interested in hearing your comment on it. Also, you are correct in saying that the 2 comments are not in my favor, but I don't understand them as being against some independence, even if not "unquestionably independent". I am prepared to accept what the reviewer of this discussion determines. I'm sorry if I have given you needless trouble or offense. As to WP:HEYMAN, I'll readily admit that I am a novice in policy and disputes, since I had very little conflict with other editors before this year, and now I'm trying to do non-conflictual work, and go through the arduous process of learning more of that policy, though I'm not alone in finding that challenging. I've simply been making my modest contribution to the deletion discussions and remain prepared to accept consensus. Jzsj (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No one is saying you cannot use a source like Our Sunday Visitor to source some facts, only that it does nothing to establish notability.--Precisely.The bar of sources for verifiability and that for establishing notability are widely different.Your comments have hit the nail on the head. ∯WBG^converse 09:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Kept at AfD less than three months ago. Too soon to be nominating again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. ∯WBG^converse 13:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  What's changed then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The last AFD was a travesty of a discussion. John's detailed analysis, over this AFD, ought to highlight that and that things won't be so smooth, as they were last time.Best, ∯WBG^converse 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The scale of this ministry -- 43 states and 116 dioceses clearly indicates that this is notable. And if it is notable, we should have an article on it. The dearth of independent sources (so far found) is NOT a ground for deletion. Furthermore having been recently KEPT, we should not be discussing this again. By all means leave it tagged for improvement, but the fact that it has not been improved is NOT a ground for deletion: WP:V is verifiable, not verified. Additionally, there is no reason to suppose that Catholic journalists working for Catholic newspapers should not tell the truth, at least as much as secular ones do. The nom is asking for too high a standard for sourcing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So do you have any policy based reason for keep? Verifiability is not being raised as an issue. The sole issue is notability. The applicable notability standard is WP:ORG (which is the same guideline as NCORP). Your !vote as it stands now is nothing but WP:ILIKEIT. So please, provide some sources that are independent of the Catholic Church. Or are you trying to make an argument that somehow the Catholic Church is independent of the Catholic Church. We are not here to be the mouthpiece for any company or organization. If the only material available is from the subject of the article (or its parent organization), the subject isn't notable and the article is promotional. My analogy to "Corvette" and General Motors is spot on. Please provide an explanation as to why General Motors and the Catholic Church should be treated differently under our current guidelines. Peterkingiron, the last AfD was a travisty. It was kept based on a vote count. Not one single keep vote proffered a source, or an argument to policy, but all the delete votes did. It should have been relisted or closed no consensus. I find the notion that the Catholic Church should somehow have a special carveout when it comes to notability to be absurd, and biased. Yet your vote above, citing all sorts of things that have nothing whatsoever to do with notability, and making red herring arguments about people doubting the veracity of the Catholic Church, seems to be calling for that. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I judge what I read: I ask myself whether it is credible and notable. I am not a Catholic and try to be objective about that church. If it is not a hoax, it should certainly be kept. We have multiple sources on it. I agree that they are all related to the Catholic Church, but that does not mean that the journalists writing news reports are not independent enough to write objectively about what they observe. You are seeking too high a standard. When it comes to articles on local churches and one-man ministries, I have no compunction about voting to delete as NN. However, if this is on the scale claimed by the article, the organisation is clearly notable. Many articles are not fully verified, but that does not mean their content is a lie. The Prison Ministry of the Catholic Church in what must be a large proportion of USA cannot be anything other than notable; and if it is notable, WP should have an article. That is the basis of my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And there was nothing wrong with the previous AFD. Almost all votes were to keep, and mostly from experienced editors, who regularly deal with AFDs (as I do). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - this is a fairly well-known (to Catholic and non-catholic defense attorneys, anyway) prison ministry, although I'd like to see more electronic sources added per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What WP:GNG says about notability is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." From this I would conclude that the large-circulation, national newspaper Our Sunday Visitor is an independent source, or all Catholic sources would be excluded from articles about church organizations, and all newspapers should be considered as dependent, catering to the perspective of those who buy the paper. Here is where I suggest some careful judgment and common sense is needed to judge each case for reliability. Jzsj (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter nonsense. How is the Catholic Church not affiliated with the Catholic Church? And again, you are confusing notability with verifiability. There is nothing wrong with using an affiliated publication to cite non promotional and non controversial facts. In the world of school articles we do it all the time. We routinely cite state championships to the state athletics sanctioning body, which every school is a dues paying member. However, that does not count towards notability. ORG/NCORP serves as a guideline for interpreting sources to be applied to GNG. And even GNG states clearly that you must have independent sources to show notability. The only way a publication of the Catholic Church shows notability is if the subject is NOT affiliated with the Catholic Church. Have you looked in trade publications for the corrections industry? Because still, there are 0 no non affiliated sources on the article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what was the name of the school article that got Jzsj banned form education topics, for nitpicking over postnomials and wasting huge amounts of everyone's time? I'll bet this prison ministry is not any bigger than your average airport chapel. (NOT a suggestion to create articles on airport chapels.)96.127.243.251 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The present article is plain advertising based on the own website (source 1, 2, 3, 5, 10), press releases (source 8, 9), related, printed information supplying (selling??) website (source 6, 7, 14), passing mentions (source 4, 12) and related sources/interview with the founder (source 11, 13). Not a single one that will survive scrutiny against WP:RS. The Banner talk 23:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A careful study of WP:RS would find most of these sources useful. If you can be more specific about what part of WP:RS you're looking at, I might then find another part that balances it off. Also, this guideline yields to policy. In the end, even what should be challenged is not the determination of one editor but a matter for consensus. Jzsj (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice attempt to prove that you really do not understand WP:RS. WP:CIR is more and more an issue. The Banner talk 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is a major organisation, and regarding the sources - while not ideal there is coverage in a number of Catholic reliable sources that have a good reputation for accuracy and are circulated in the mainstream, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are only tenuous arguments to identify this ministry as somehow dependent on Our Sunday Visitor. What would be gained by eliminating this coverage of a widespread, national ministry with very credible coverage in national media. Jzsj (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny to see how you change "related" into "dependent", what is something completely different. The Banner talk 09:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely different? ... Wouldn't "somehow dependent" be the denial of independent, which is the issue here? Jzsj (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really do not know the difference between "related to" and "depending on"? The Banner talk 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me the reference to where you find the word "related" given a technical sense in regard to WP:RS; I fail to find the word so used on that page. Also, all Catholics are somehow related to the Catholic church, but there is no church doctrine that prevents Catholic newspapers from reporting the facts about organizations like this. It is to their benefit to do so, lest they lose the respect of honest and knowledgeable Catholics. Jzsj (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is precisely the point. Catholic organizations exist to promote Catholic values and to promote and protect other Catholic organizations. Indeed, today's huge grand jury report admonished the Catholic Church and its affiliated organizations in Pennsylvania for hiding the sexual abuse of over a thousand children by over 300 different priests. Over three hundred priests got away with sexual crimes, as they were protected by the Catholic organizations around them. That's the problem in a nutshell: Catholic organizations and publications are not objective sources on information since they have a vested interest in promoting their own agenda and protecting their interests-- just as they did in Pennsylvania.It took independent sources like The Boston Globe to report factually what was happening there.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not meeting NORG. If this were an article about any other kind of organisation or company for example a bottle manufacturer and we replaced the word Catholic in the title of the sources by "bottle manufacturer" then we would get "Bottle manufacturers digest" and "Bottle manufacturer's Herald" and for the benefit of notability these would be considered as trade publications. The Catholic press has a vested interest in promoting Catholic missions and cannot be considered as totally independent and as per WP:IS "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective". I believe the three sources are RS but not independent and as per WP:N "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." Dom from Paris (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I enjoyed your reasoning here. It made things clear as a bell. 96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The subject, on the basis of what's out there, could be doing noble work. But what's out there is not enough, per Wikipedia's standards, to establish notability. Dom from Paris elaborated all that needed to be elaborated, above. Outside material from primary sources and religious missives promoting and blessing the good work of the ministry, we have practically nothing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 15 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 Polar bear plunge. I don't see much to actually merge, but anyone who wishes to salvage what is left can do so via the redirect page's history. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 00:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polar Bear Swimming Contest[edit]

Polar Bear Swimming Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, no secondary source, not written in neutral point of view. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to polar bear plunge. The nominator must be from a hot climate =) Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chubbles: It's hot and humid :( ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 05:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to polar bear plunge. Thanks to Chubbles for identifying a target. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 15 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Szilard Voros[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Insufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Currently fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete medical researchers are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kapya John Kaoma[edit]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that "The word 'notable' is used on Wikipedia to mean that independent reliable sources have taken notice of the subject." How is this not the case for this entry? There are a number of "independent reliable sources" cited. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Chip.berlet: To break down the sources:

1. This one is just a video posted by him.
2. This isn't even a source, it's just a list of search results that only proves that he has written articles. It's tantamount to linking to Google search results. You could do a search for my name on Roughstock.com, a country music site that I used to write for, and it'd turn up everything I've written there but it wouldn't assert me as notable.
3. This source is just a resume, which is not a reliable source at all.

The other links posted are mostly things he has written by himself, which are primary sources. Things that would be reputable include newspaper, magazine, journal, or reputable website articles that are specifically and extensively about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. The "research-associates" cited on the Boston University page site is not in any way connected to "Political Research Associates." Those are separate appointments for Rev. Kaoma. Different institutions in different cities.
2. When legitimate independant publishers print a book by Rev. Kaoma, this is not an unreferenced source nor self-promotion by Rev. Kaoma.
3. Political Research Associates has been recognized as a "reputable"publisher of website articles and print publications--this after tedious Arbcom struggles.
4. The video in which Rev. Kaoma appears was not made by nor posted by him. It is a page published by the London Guardian called DocuBeat which covers documentaries. According to the Guardian :

  "Uganda's president Yoweri Museveni has approved a law that will see people convicted of homosexuality in Uganda jailed for life. In these extracts from director Roger Ross Williams' documentary God Loves Uganda, undercover filming by a Boston-based Anglican priest, Kapya Kaoma, shows how anti-gay evangelical campaigners from the United States have been influential in the debate, pushing Uganda to pass measures that would be unthinkable in the US."Chip.berlet (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Chip.berlet:: The first source is still just a video of him talking, which is not independent of him. The books published by him are still primary sources since he wrote them. The Political Research link still isn't valid since it only proves that he's written articles. It's not an article about him. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a clear violation of NPOV rules. It is also one of the worst articles in trying to create a pan-African ideal I have seen on a person in Afirca. It engages in totally violating NPOV language, and is clearly written with a speccific promotional goal. That being said, the article is also totally devoid of reliable secondary sources. Which probably heavily relates to it being essentially a platform to use Kaoma to attack the actions of various people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - I'm surprised that anyone would want to delete this guy's article. He is a major commentator on African issues and have appeared on numerous UK TV programmes over the years on issues relating to Africa including BBC, ITV and Channel 4. I have examined the sources cited and virtually all of them comes from reliable sources including the Guardian video [22] who sourced it from Docubeat - a non-fiction and news oriented organisation affiliated with the Guardian, Huntington Post and El Pais - all of which are reliable sources. These media houses have strong editorial practices. They would not add anything on their websites without following due editorial process. Even the bios and writings of this person from other reliable sources such as the Political Research Associates [23], the Center for Global Christianity and Mission at Boston University (School of Theology) [24] and Huntington Post [25] all passes RS. The Washington Post article [26] about about his life and work also passes RS. As regards to some of his writings, it is irrelevant who authored them provided they are in reliable and veritable sources as per our policies here, and all of them passes RS. We cannot start changing the rules willi nilli just because we don't want a particular type of article here. This person passes WP:GNG or at the very least, WP:BASIC. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Going back to the nomination, "...individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. References are brief mentions, list of articles created by individual, and advertising." I am not sure how one can equate the source of the references with the substance of the reference. No one is changing the rules, I see only an application of them. Ten Pound Hammer has done a good job of specifically giving examples of the inadequacy of the references. reddogsix (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I refer you to my !vote above. There is no advertising in the sources I've cited. I haven't even include his own website. There is an in-depth coverage about his life and work in the sources cited. What exactly did you want the sources to say that would have satisfied you? You can always take that out with the sources if you feel they have not reported the subject to your liking. As for TenPoundHammer, he has been known for making disingenuous and dubious nominations. Must I remind you about this [27] and this case against him? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that Senegambianamestudy (talk · contribs) is undergoing WP:TEND because they keep blowing up the Wikipedia talk: section of this AFD, saying over and over and over again that the sources are good because they're good. I also find it ridiculous that the user is trying to drag my name through the mud when it was recently decided to loosen my XFD restrictions. To @Senegambianamestudy: -- @Reddogsix: has already explained that the "coverage" which you are claiming is, quote, "brief quotes or single line references - far from what is needed to support inclusion." and your solution was to slather the article with even more passing mentions and blurbs. To wit, as of this revision of the article:

1. Sources 1 through 14, except for 10, were all published by the source himself. That makes them primary sources, which on their own are not sufficient for notability.
2. Source 10, as I said earlier, is not what we would consider a "source". It's just a directory listings of articles published by him -- which again, is still a primary source since it consists of content made by the subject himself.
3. Source 15 just quotes Kapya in a single line on an article that otherwise has nothing to do with Kapya himself. I was quoted in a newspaper article about a local mall. The newspaper article in question confers notability to the mall, certainly, but not to me.
4. Source 16 is a transcript of a Rachel Maddow show, in which the subject is only shown briefly in a video clip.
5. Source 17 quotes him passingly in The Economist.

I could go further down each source, but you, @Senegambianamestudy:, seem to be missing the point. We're not doubting that he exists. We're not doubting that he's doing good. But mere name-drops, passing mentions, a single line of being quoted here and there -- none of those is significant coverage. They're just name-drops and quote-mining. Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him? That is the kind of coverage desired. We are not "changing the rules" in an attempt to keep your article out -- we are explaining to you how your sources are only trivial passing mentions, yet you are just covering your ears and screaming "BUT HE'S NOTABLE! THE SOURCES ARE FINE!" despite the deck clearly being stacked against you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one is dragging your name through the mud. No one is undergoing tendentious editing. I simply provided the link to your indefinite topic ban. Quote: "TenPoundHammer is indefinitely topic-banned from all deletion activities, broadly construed." Anyway let's not derail this AfD any further. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have been much more impressed if @Senegambianamestudy had addressed the comments specifically about the quality of references (the items relevant to the AfD) instead of what amounts to probably less than 2% of the comment. None of that 2% has any bearing on the AfD. For goodness sake, focus on saving the article. TPH asks, " Do you have any articles that are exclusively or largely about him and only him?" Provide that and it should help save the article. reddogsix (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I suggest other Wikipedia editors do a Google search for "Kapya John Kaoma" and "Kapya Kaoma" in the "books" and "news" sections to see how the calls for deleting this page lack substance.Chip.berlet (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Provide them in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - But when I pointed out on this discussion page several egregious factual errors by critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma, my post here on this page was deleted. What's that about? If I make additions to the page for Kapya John Kaoma are they just going to be deleted without comment as well? Do I have to visit this discussion page every day to make sure critics of the page for Kapya John Kaoma are not just deleting what I post here?Chip.berlet (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a WP:diff to the deletion to which you refer? That is a serious accusation, and it needs evidence. I can't see any such deletion of any of your posts. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Chip.berlet </sigh> Do you think that by creating an ad hominem argument you will bolster your justification to keep and that it will eliminate my comment. If there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance.

Once more, provide the references in the article (remember Wikipedia is requires ..."in-depth, non-trivial sources...") and it will help insure the article survives the AfD. Relying on someone else to do the work may not move this discussion in a positive direction. You have the burden to provide the substance to allow the article to survive the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• question - And what am I supposed to do when some of the evidence for delisting that page discussed here on this talk page is demonstrably false, and when I point that out my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted? So on Wikipedia false assertions are protected but pointing out the false "evidence" is to be sanctioned? I have been to Arbcom on this sort of complaint with the LaRouchites. This is a major flaw of the system here on Wikipedia. Tell me what I should do when false "evidence" is posted that a grade school student can fact check? This is a serious question. Chip.berlet (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "...my comments showing the criticisms are false are deleted?" Once again, "if there has been a removal of substance, then prove it - not formatting or erroneous text, but text of substance." reddogsix (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think that WP:NPROF#1 is met; The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He seems to be a leading expert on LGBT issues in Zambia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though the "reliable sources" only vaguely and passingly mention him? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless citations are added to the article to establish that he's notable. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I got 5 hits for "John Kaoma" on Google/News, [28][29][30][31] are texts by him, that is of no use in this discussion. [32] mentions his name in passing, and that doesn't help either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "Kapya Kaoma" would be a better search. Will look some more. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [33] (WaPo) isn't enough in itself, but it helps the case for keep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly mentioned and quoted in reliable sources, but that's not what we're looking for. Found these [34][35][36] but IMO they don't push him over the WP:GNG line, I'm sorry to say. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The best of the reliable sources in the article and brought forward in this debate, taken as a whole, are sufficient to establish notabilty. I draw a different conclusion than Gråbergs Gråa Sång from the three sources immediately above. I consider those sources good evidence of notability, when evaluated with the other sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree there is now sufficient evidence with the three extra sources above for WP:GNG to be passed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be a reasonably strong case for passing WP:ACADEMIC guidelines, in that Kaoma is a prominent figure in his area of research and activism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:43, 19 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 Mystery Case Files. Consensus favors a redirect at this time, and the delete !vote does not object to a redirect. I would suggest that WP:ATD-R favors the redirect as well. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 00:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Case Files: Madame Fate[edit]

Mystery Case Files: Madame Fate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Other than simple listings, press releases, blogs, and trivial mentions, no in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per previous AFD. --Izno (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: There's no substantive coverage that I'm able to find here, should redirect to Mystery Case Files. Nomader (talk) 22:50, 19 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zindagi Ek Safar Hai Suhana[edit]

Zindagi Ek Safar Hai Suhana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It did win one award for lyrics but that does not justify the article creation per WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NSONGS#1 (charts) + WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSONGS#3 (re-release) clause. The WP:MAINSTREAM and a major newspaper calls this song a cult classic and one of the 5 major songs of one of the most popular singers of Indian Cinema Kishore Kumar passes the WP:GNG as well due to this. Sources discussing the song in detail. ^[1][2][3][4] --DBigXray 20:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]