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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers[edit]

Center for Research and Promotion of Farmers (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)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Probably notable. A search for references under the Spanish name or acronym should help. See Find sources, above. The Spanish Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the group, but some references show up: [1] Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, also under the Spanish name there is not much about this organisation. The Banner talk 21:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an English-language book [2] listed among the references published in The Netherlands. As well, I added some Spanish-language references. I think that notability is firmly established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I know nothing of it but it looks notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY as the spanish references added enable a pass of WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:14, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:12, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Nike Premier Cup[edit]

2018 Nike Premier Cup (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 football event (youth football), fail WP:NSPORTS and fails WP:GNG. The user keep on userfied the article and then move back to the main namespace. Matthew_hk tc 23:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 23:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and SALT - seems to have been repeatedly recreated with changes to bypass SALT. That said, deleting and salting this is better than no action at all. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable youth tournament. should be salted too. Coderzombie (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT per nom, failing NSport. Govvy (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt A non-notable article. We do not create this kind of articles. Also, it is meaningless to recreate and nothing to merge. Hhkohh (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + Salt per nom. Redditaddict69 03:30, 27 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. Essentially, additional sources were supplied by the "keep" side, that were not adequately rebuked by the "delete" side. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp[edit]

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp (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)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Event/person is not a topic of enduring notability, nor is it a topic of historical significance. AldezD (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*coughs*. Non-notable crimes don't get an extensive article thirty-four years later. You are as bad as User:TheLongTone. There's also this from 2008, this from 2010. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: First, you do realize you are quoting a source that says “but the Tapp double murder was never famous...”, right? More to the point, dunno about Strinistan, but around here if something is sourced to Murdochiana, it better be the WSJ. Qwirkle (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: This AfD is tainted because AldezD only found out about the article because he is clearly watching my edits which is totally out of line'. God, AldezD must be on Mescaline if he thinks watching my edits is OK. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—Local news stories do not meet WP:SIGCOV for the crime that is the subject of this AFD. The 2008 link is about evidence mishandling. It is not WP:SIGCOV nor does it meet WP:N guidelines for the crime itself. The 2010 link states "But the Tapp double murder was never famous...Nothing has changed that in a quarter century." AldezD (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment*: I'm sorry. As MarnetteD noted elsewhere, I want to give victims like Margaret and Seana a voice because they deserve better than faded memories and chapters in true crime books. I'm just trying to do the right thing. I'm not "obsessed with dead girls" because it isn't my fault that most disappearances and murders that makes the headlines are girls and women. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX address why these are not valid reasons for keep. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. On-going coverage from 1984 (I presume - need news archive) to 2018 - and not in a single spurt - meets WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9].Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—As noted above, these links are not WP:SIGCOV of the crime. WP:NCRIME states "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines" (referring to WP:EVENT). The links in this discussion do not meet criteria in WP:EVENT.
    • The first link is unviewable.
    • The second link is about evidence mishandling, as is the topic of the source. Mentioning the crime twice in one paragraph of a 451-page book is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
    • The fourth link is about evidence mishandling. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
    • The fifth link is a repost of a 2008 story already linked above and is about evidence mishandling. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
    • The sixth link is a stub news article about one television viewer calling a station that aired a cold case segment on the article subject and mentions multiple cold cases. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
    • The seventh link is a repost of the 2010 story already linked above and directly states "But the Tapp double murder was never famous...Nothing has changed that in a quarter century."
    • The third link is about the case and investigative activity subsequent to the murders. But again, noting the above links are not SIGCOV, a single news story reviewing events of the case and that new evidence was (at the time) recently found in a cold case 30 years after the murders took place is not criteria that meets WP:EVENT/WP:NCRIME. This topic fails all guidelines presented in this discussion.

AldezD (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Icewhiz is correct about the sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG says that high profile cases can gain notability, but again and again the sources directly say the opposite. adding a cite that is literally a footnote doesn’t suggest that something deserves an article, it suggests it deserves a footnote, an maybe elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle AldezD only found out about the Tapp's article by watching my recent edits. He should be reprimanded for that as it is no different in spirit from legal threats which is a bannable offence here. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve stated this at excessive length, here and elsewhere. Even if it is true, it doesn’t change the fact that this crime might not need its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Paul sweetie, I would not have come across this entirely unremarkable murder unless you had namechecked me. Don't hold grudges, and don't be paranoid; as I've told you, checking out a dubious editor's history is a sensible thing to do Seriously, the only slender reason for asserting notability is that a news item has appeared because of a cold cased review; clearly WP:NOTNEWS. And also WP:NOTMEMORIALTheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone I just think victims like Margaret and Seana deserve a voice. Someone has to care about them. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect the desire to memorialise; I just think that a lot of the time this can be done in lists.TheLongTone (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone and Shadowowl Would you both be agreeable to retaining Margaret and Seana's brief entry at List of unsolved deaths instead of a separate article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Paul Benjamin Austin: has to stop with his excessive memorial arguments and may have a Conflict of Interest.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have a tendency to see promotional newspaper articles as unreliable, and such I will not see ref 1 as reliable. The third ref is better, but the second one is not accessible , not even through the archive. That leaves 1 reliable source, which is not enough to pass WP:NOTNEWS.  » Shadowowl | talk 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 22 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) 01:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- We cannot have an article about every unsolved murder: WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to get involved due to a possible canvassing issue. Let's all stay civil.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? Stop the presses on the Signpost: the Understatement of the Year can be awarded early. Qwirkle (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle Like I said above, would you be agreeable to retaining Margaret and Seana's brief entry on List of unsolved deaths in lieu of a separate article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Indeed, not just “no”, but “no fucking way.” You have openly admitted that this is being done for a purpose -memorialization, that is not what an encyclopedia is for. This isn’t a cenotaph, or an obit page, or one of those bizarre death dates some unfortunate people put on the back glass of their car. You have blatantly canvassed, and the only support suggested has been based on a bottom-dredge of Google.

Wikipedia has more than enough agenda-driven bullshit on it already.

Stop trying to add to it. Qwirkle (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Icewhiz and BabbaQ. This is not a typical unsolved murder either, so we are in no danger of having an article about every unsolved murder. James500 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added a more plausible search bar to make it easier for editors to see the ONGOING coverage. Case appears in books because samples from this and 2 other murders were confused. Coverage has been ongoing [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up Revolvypedia and Reddit in the first listingpage? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any news search will bring up recent coverage of this 1984 murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• a good archive search brings up INDEPTH coverage over many years, for example: Herald Sun, 23 July 2008. p. 3. It's a long story, but here are some details: "as a result of dramatic improvements in DNA technology... Scientists were recently able to get a DNA profile from semen left on nine-year-old Seana Tapp's underwear... "Little Seana, nine years old, had been sexually assaulted and both of them had been strangled," he said....E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:02, 27 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 is an obvious keep. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Science University (Bahrain)[edit]

Applied Science University (Bahrain) (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 page is not notable and some of the sources are primary. They are not reliable sources and this specific university is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. I cannot find any articles from reliable sources like the New York Times. See WP:N Parmaparma (talk) 23:10, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you looking in the NYT for a Bahrain University? You should be looking in Bahraini newspapers. SpinningSpark 23:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was all news sources of similar credibility, including Bahraini newspapers. I could not find much for this university in those newspapers either.Parmaparma (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really found nothing in Arabic? Not even "The University of Applied Sciences celebrates the publication of 100 scientific researches in one year" (trans)? SpinningSpark 15:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be an accredited university. Can't see any good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is an accredited Bahraini university, details of the university are extensively reported in the country's educational quality assurance authority amongst others. Additionally, the faculty/students have published in academia.Droodkin (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but improve per WP:NSCHOOL. The nominator is right on all counts, however, as an accredited university it passes inherent notability. Chetsford (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a degree-awarding institution of higher learning; a suitable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The university is accredited by the Bahraini Ministry of Education, it has over 2,400 students, and has several colleges. In my book, that's notable. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't read any of it, but the arabic term "جامعة العلوم التطبيقية" gets a lot of hits for arabic books and news sites. Accredited degree awarding universities are a prima facie keep and there is precious little evidence that this one will not meet GNG with a bit of digging. SpinningSpark 15:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kiko Laxa Ferrer[edit]

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

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

Not a notable internet personality/literary manager. He isn't the author of the books pictured in the infobox, nor is he mentioned on the online stores used as references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable person, Fails GNG. Emily Khine (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is largely sourced to non-RS such as YouTube and retail websites like www.nationalbookstore.com. My BEFORE search in the usual places (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find anything that would help this pass GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chetsford. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc A. Gallo[edit]

Marc A. Gallo (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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable musician. Many of the refs are by him, and appearing in a home-renovation segment on HGTV isn't independent or significant. The Philadelphia Inquirer piece (linked on his website) is okay, but that's only one reference (and a local "arts" piece) and is insufficient for GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I saw two passing mentions that do not rise to the level of significant coverage to pass general notability. Likewise, I don't see evidence of (inter)national touring or similar proof of musical notability. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing here in the article or found in a Google search supports a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability not supported by searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tune Smithy[edit]

Tune Smithy (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)

How is this subject notable? Almost all of the Google search results link to pages that were created by the man who created this article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was my first article and I was not aware of many of the Wikipedia guidelines. I have a declaration of interest on my user page here: User:Robertinventor#Declaration of interest. The reason I did not delete it was:

• Review of Tune Smithy and the fractal tunes is the main focus in Sound on Sound printed magazine covering musicain's software and hardware.
• Short Review of Bounce Metronome (scroll down a little) in Sound on Sound printed magazine
• References to Tune Smithy in Tuning, timbre, spectrum, scale By William A. Sethares
• For more academic cites: 17 cites of "Tune Smithy" and 3 cites of "Bounce Metronome" in Google Scholar

Please take these into consideration and decide accordingly. Robert Walker (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G11, promo for Robert's not-free software No editors have contributed text or sources beyond the most basic of copyediting. Robert's sources above are product reviews (see WP:SPIP), and nobody cares about the WP:GOOGLETEST. On the day of article creation, Robert also created a user page in which he proudly proclaimed that Tune Smithy was his best selling software. This is part of a pattern of Wikipedia editing intersecting with Robert's financial self promotion. At this ANI proceeding its observed that Robert's work here on Mars overlaps the work he sells on Amazon. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PROMO and failing to meet WP:GNG. Each of the two reviews are for different products: one is for Tune Smithy and the other is for the related, but separate product, Bounce Metronome and does not mention Tune Smithy. Although they are independent and reliable sources with significant mentions of the two products, one such source for each product is not, in my opinion, sufficient to establish notability for either product. If the products were truly notable, there would be additional product reviews or other significant mentions of them. The other listed sources are all passing mentions of the product and do not establish notability. Ca2james (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Self-promotion as demonstrated at his latest ANI incident report. Regarding intrinsic notability, it has none. It was mentioned very casually of its existence in only one review article. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of founders of religious traditions. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of the founders of religious traditions[edit]

Comparison of the founders of religious traditions (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)

Was initially created based on a single primary source from the Baha'i faith then has become bait for original research and grew. Was slightly discussed before here and here, I finally decided to nominate it. —PaleoNeonate – 21:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at User talk:Wiki-uk. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at User talk:Cuñado. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at User talk:Joe Roe. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at User talk:Doug Weller. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PaleoNeonate – 21:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Sure seems awfully redundant to list of founders of religious traditions, which also has tables for additional information. Not saying merge because it's unclear how much of this would be appropriate there. I'd recommend keeping the history and anyone who wants to merge can propose doing so on the other article's talk page (or be bold independent of this AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Can it be renamed to "Comparison of the founders of religious traditions (Bahá'í view)"? Wiki-uk (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - the article is well intentioned but the structure and categories introduce a POV about the unity of religions. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:CHEAP as suggeseted by Rhododendrites. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Agree with Rhododendrites. This is an Essayish comparison - might be something worth merging - that can be done after the redirect. The rename wouldn't work here as while this seems to be the Bahá'í view, it is sourced (for other religions) to non-Bahá'í sources.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the above, I agree a rename won't work. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a very peculiar table. It is not an obvious search term, so that a redirect does not seem useful, but I would not oppose that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:AGF (I did not check the sources). This is actually a comparison, not a list. Not a content fork to the list of founders of religious traditions. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The form doesn't work, the topic is too complex, for example the "event" column states a lot of startling things in WP:s voice and internal/external is too simplified. And what religion did they start? An article based on scolarly sources that discuss the topic could possibly be written, this grid-structure needs simple stuff to work with, like place in time and geography. "Comparing" Muhammad to Buddha is harder. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR. The "facts" in the table are things like: Death; Moses: "Natural death (age c. 120)"that we cover on other more appropriate pages. I do not doubt the significance of Bahá'u'lláh's "Vision of the Maid of Heaven", or of Joseph Smith's "First Vision, where God the Father and the Son appeared to Smith as a young boy." But comparing cherry-picked items from disparate scriptural traditions and arranging them in a table is a work of pure WP:OR that is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:23, 26 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 Pete Wisdom. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Romany Wisdom[edit]

Romany Wisdom (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)

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked to in the body of two articles, and only appears 10 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: W. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No information from reliable secondary sources that is not routine to merge.Killer Moff (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Pete Wisdom per Argento Surfer Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. There are no reliable source in the article and the only material I can locate are release announcements and descriptions on store sites. Jbh ^Talk 00:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 17:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pete Wisdom - no secondary coverage by RS, and not notable within the fiction. Not worth merging due to the lack of incoming links, but this target gives a basic description. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:22, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

Continental Wrestling Entertainment (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've kept an eye on this article for a long time, and I haven't seen any improvement in its sourcing. I've looked and I so far have seen little too no real coverage on this promotion. ★Trekker (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I heared about the promotion, the Great Khali school. However, I doesn't look like a notable promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I remember an old AfD. Maybe we should look for sources from India, no just focus on America.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It appears that India.com has had a few articles [11] I see another on indiantelevision.com [12] and indiatimes.com [13]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are those sources really considered reliable?★Trekker (talk) 01:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone from the wikiproject for India can chime in on that - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable wrestling promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 23 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-cleaning toilet bowl[edit]

Self-cleaning toilet bowl (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)

Stub with minimal potential for expansion. Most of the content was close paraphrase of PR news releases. –dlthewave ☎ 19:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, along with all the other promotional toilet mechanism articles. wumbolo ^^^ 08:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this just needs a brief mention in Toilet seat. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:52, 24 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. General acceptance that he just about satisfies NFOOTY (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hunt[edit]

Alex Hunt (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 footballer - no independent refs, and I can't find any significant coverage online. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is very soon indeed. However, WP:NFOOTY is very clear. A player or manager is notable if they have played in a match for a fully professional side in a qualifying cup. Hunt has played exactly one game for the EFL cup (now called the Carabao cup due to sponsorship), which is listed in the qualifying leagues for football. [14]. So, based on WP:NFOOTY being very clear - he passes. I was going to vote delete until I checked the guidelines and list of qualifying leagues. Ross-c (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I concur with Ross-c, as Alex Hunt has played in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, specifically a game between Sheffield Wednesday F.C. of the EFL Championship and Sunderland A.F.C. of EFL League One (see WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:FPL). Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having made his cup debut for the senior team he passes WP:NFOOTY. Govvy (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Following the Cup appearance, he passes NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted above he passes NFOOTY. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment keep !voters are encouraged to note that according to 2017 consensus, SNGs in general and WP:NSPORTS in particular do not supersede GNG. While, as a bright line rule, NSPORT subguidelines are useful to indicate which players are likely to meet GNG, it is not an exemption, and especially for more recent athletes where coverage is increasingly online, !voters are encouraged to actually find sources. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:00, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1257 in philosophy[edit]

1257 in philosophy (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. List with 1 entry. » Shadowowl | talk 19:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete List with one entry, article states person may have not been born in 1257. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 19:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given above. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 19:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Searched for other potential articles for inclusion without luck. Indeed we do not need a list of 1. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete far too much detail for a stand-alone page. A new page and 13th century in philosophy doesn't exist, so no redirect needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough for its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - list with only one entry, the article does not clarify why 1257 was such a significant year in philosophy to merit its own article. Vorbee (talk) 15:58, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foodtubes[edit]

Foodtubes (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)

Unrealized concept with minimal RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Verging on self (company) promotion, only two of 5 sources appear to be marginally reliable, remainder are original research. None of the "team" appear to be notable. On an off-topic note I live in Croydon and I can say I have never heard of such a concept. Nightfury 15:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unambiguous promotional article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional article, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete currently proposed. Yet to achieve notability. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is good and may soon be notable, so it should be preserved somewhere. I'm in favor of Draftifying until notability is achieved. Would hate to see this article go to waste. Redditaddict69 03:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wing (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Wing (Marvel Comics) (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Appears in eight issues, according to Marvel Wikia: Two of these describe the character as appearing "only in flashback", and the other six are all from one storyline. Four non-list non-disambiguation articles link to this page, which provide sufficient context. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: W. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No information from reliable secondary sources to merge.Killer Moff (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage by RS, insignificant within the fiction. Incoming links provide suitable context. I would suggest redirecting to one of them, but none of them seem to be more obvious or detailed than the others. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 27 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth generation cyberattack[edit]

If you came here because https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1031647567799623680, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Fifth generation cyberattack (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this page seems like a little bit of marketing, I don't think it should be deleted. This term has been used by several other sources so I don't think we can accuse Checkpoint of creating this article to bolster their credibility. –——–Pandhi4839 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This account has been created today, and has made few edits outside deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This doesn't really fit the General notability guideline in my opinion; the only sources I could find about this term are either Wikipedia mirrors, other company websites, or only have a trivial mention. It seems to be a term used by Checkpoint that has not entered general usage. -Sonicwave ^(talk) 18:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can not find any reliable sources for the notability of this term. I have taken the time to review all the references in the article, and this is the result:

• The lead paragraph has been "sourced" by an unrelated article. Diff 1
• The whole "Defining characteristics" section has been entirely made up per WP:SYNTH: None of these sources actually say anything about the article topic. Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4, Diff 5
• At this point, I have added an ((original research)) tag to the article. Diff 6
• There has been citation overkill (see this essay) with unreliable sources, press releases, marketing blog posts, YouTube interviews. Diff 7, Diff 8, Diff 9, Diff 10, Diff 11
• The sentence "Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations", previously the sentence with the most citations in the article, consequently turned out to be original research as well. Diff 12
• The last reference that said anything about the article topic turned out to be a login-walled source. Using Google Cache, I was able to access it. Below the source, I found the following notice about the source's author: "Rick Rogers [line break] Rogers is Regional Director for Africa at Check Point Software Limited" -- That's the same company that Cindyjwilson, the article creator, has declared to work for. Not a reliable source, and original research as well. Diff 13
• There are some reliable sources left, but they say nothing about the article topic and are just describing the general cybersecurity situation of the world.

The article, in its revised state, can sadly somehow be described like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:SYNTH intended to establish one vendor's preferred neologism (WP:NEO). Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is a marketing term with no clear meaning that's only used in marketing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are no articles detailing "generations of cyberattacks" prior to this supposed "fifth generations", which is a marketing term constructed by CheckPoint Security (the same company who created this wiki page). The article also makes unsubstantiated claims such as "Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations" despite there being no widespread use of such terminology outside of recent CheckPoint articles and op-eds. MalwareTechBlog (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Something between WP:OR and WP:NEO. The term itself and the whole notion of "generations" were apparently introduced/invented at Checkpoint. None of the sources support that it was used anywhere else than in their material, blogs and op-eds (If such sources did exist, I'm pretty sure they'd have added them by now). The sources that do exist only describe that attacks got more sophisticated over time. If "generations of cyberattacks" was actually a widely used concept there would be no lack of sources actually dealing with it, and they would go back for years. Averell (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, understanding that edits are needed. I'm the original author, let me make a few points.
  • It is well understood in the industry that significant changes have occurred in recent years. In particular, nearly all coverage of WannaCry and NotPetya characterized them as significantly different from previous attacks. It's true that the article title I chose reflects terminology used by my employer; but I don't know a better term to describe the current state of things.
  • When I came to Wikipedia, the definition of Cyberattack was essentially frozen at 2010. I feel that was a great disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Things have changed a great deal in 8 years.
  • I made every effort to engage other Wikipedia editors for input. The result may not be perfect, but I object to the characterization of my actions (beginning, as far as I can tell, with this tweet) as being "gross." I discussed the article with Kvng (talk · contribs) prior to publishing, and have also discussed with Jytdog (talk · contribs) and zchrykng (talk · contribs). My aim has always been to work in support of the Wikipedia community, not to subvert it. There's no need to make this personal, I feel it is beneath the Wikipedia community to do so.
  • One specific place where I acknowledge my version was problematic: as I've learned more about Wikipedia and about the source, I see I should not have included the Business Day article; it's not up to the WP:RS standard. There are, however, other sources that are independent of my employer that discuss the 5 generations -- some with reference to our company, and some without. It's been my belief that when an established, independent source covers a concept, that would help confer notability -- whether or not they quote my colleagues.
  • I think it's important to consider what Wikipedia's readers are seeking. The page views for this article have increased since I first submitted it, and have actually surpassed those for the main cyberattack article. The initial spike preceded the tweet I linked above, and I have made no special effort to promote the article -- so I think this demonst\es there's interest in the topic out there. See pageview results.
• I can see it's possible this article will be deleted, but I hope others in the discussion will consider these points. It's important for Wikipedia to have up-to-date information about a topic like this. I tried to avoid a promotional tone by keeping my company's name out of the article; perhaps there is more that needs to be done to avoid that, but I don't think that outright deletion is in the best interests of Wikipedia's readers. -Cindy (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • • We did not discuss this page specifically. I do not appreciate being name-dropped at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to specify which Wikipedia notability policy the subject meets. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberattack is a notable topic. This material was WP:SPLIT out of that article. We can talk about whether this actually deserves its own article or should be merged back to Cyberattack but the nom and most of the participants have (rightfully) whizzed right past that to more serious WP:NEO and WP:OR concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already !voted on that basis. Curious about what Wikipedia notability policy the article author had in mind when creating the separate article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: The author is an inexperienced editor who contributed generations material to Cyberattack and wanted to expand further on 5th generation but we were concerned about a potential WP:UNDUE issue in Cyberattack. So giving the inexperienced editor sort of a sandbox seemed reasonable and we'd improve organization depending on how that developed. Wikipedia is a work in progress and, if the material is bogus, it's easy enough to delete. No need for pitch forks. Cindyjwilson has been upfront about her COI and we discussed all this at Talk:Cyberattack as it was happening. ~Kvng (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks. Bakazaka (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cindyjwilson: I'd like to know what specific reliable sources you believe have been using this generations terminology. Detailed comments above claim that it is only Checkpoint. If that's so, it's a serious problem. ~Kvng (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt I've reviewed this now. This is marketing garbage dumped into WP. Shameful abuse of editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was concerned at the time that it was just marketing material. Nothing I have seen since has changed my opinion on that score. Nothing personal, but someone with such an extreme COI had better provide some outstanding third party sources for something like this. ((u|zchrykng)) {T|C} 21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng Thank you for asking, here is the thought process that initially lead me to believe that this topic met Wikipedia's notability standard.

First, the "five generations" discussed today grow out of the idea of "three generations" of firewall, which is very well established, and is prominently featured in Wikipedia's own article firewall (computing). Initially I looked at the "firewall" article, but because a firewall is not the proper tool to protect against the more recent generations, it didn't make sense to add it there, where it's only tangentially relevant. That's why I came to the cyberattack article -- because it seemed like the more natural fit. For the first three "generations," there are numerous reliable sources, which cite a wide variety of primary sources (industry experts, analysts, etc.) over many years. Just a couple examples -- more should be very easy to find if needed: TechRepublic (2002) and Computer Weekly (2012).

As I pointed out above, the definition of cyberattack had no references more recent than 2010, which I think anybody familiar with the field would agree is problematic for a rapidly evolving field. (I see that an editor here has since reverted it to that state, overriding the discussion you and I had on the talk page.)

I already listed the core articles I think establish it on Talk:Cyberattack, but here is a somewhat annotated, and updated, list:

Independent industry analysts who have used the terms -- analysts like these will communicate with companies in the industry, but this kind of piece reflects the analyst's perspective, it is not a commisioned report. I consider this a strong indication of general industry knowledge, and I believe it meets WP:RS.

• Turner, Rik (May 22, 2018). "Thinking about cyberattacks in generations can help focus enterprise security plans". Informa PLC. Ovum.
• Ovum/Informa (NEW)
• Forrester named my company as a leader in the industry (2018), and while its report didn't mention "generations" by name, it did mention the characteristics we associate with fifth generation in its review of our offerings.
• Frost & Sullivan issued a presentation centered around the generations. (Full disclosure, Check Point was a co-presenter, but Frost & Sullivan was the editorial "gatekeeper." Also, I haven't yet found a link to this online, still looking.)

Earned media -- these are publishers that make their own editorial judgments. If it's an interview with Check Point personnel, or in some cases a byline by Check Point personnel, there is still independent judgment being exercised for it to be published. These are not recycled press releases, or "pay-to-play" sites.

• Bloomberg: Check Point CEO on Safeguarding the Midterm Elections (NEW)
• Tech Beacon: Is Your Security Team Ready for Gen V Cyberattacks? (2018) (NEW)
• "Check Point CEO: Fighting fifth-generation cyber attacks". CNBC. May 18, 2018.
• Lowe, Nick. "Bridging the cybersecurity generation gap". IT Pro Portal.
• "ESG Talks Implications Of An Evolving Cyber Landscape With AccessIT [Video]". CSHub.com. May 16, 2018.
• Rogers, Rick (April 2, 2018). "Gen II security will not save your company from a Gen V cyber attack". Business Day. (As stated above, I'm no longer convinced this one is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.)

Industry usage -- these are companies independent of Check Point which are also using the "five generations" terminology. While they may not score high as "reliable sources," I believe their usage of the term speaks to its usage outside of my own company.

• Cooper, Bradley (May 9, 2018). "Prepare for 5th Generation or Gen V Cyber Attacks : Cyber Security 2018 Tips". Systools.
• Wickramanayake, Vijini (March 6, 2018). "5th generation cyber attacks". Cyberon.

Discussion of general concepts I can see from discussion by others above that WP:SYNTH may be a concern here. But these articles also initially struck me as significant, because even though they do not use the word "generation," they discuss trends in ways that align with the "generations" thinking.

• World Economic Forum (2018). "The Global Risks Report 2018 13th Edition". World Economic Forum. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 23, 2018.)
• Ashford, Warwick (December 20, 2017). "Top 10 cyber crime stories of 2017". Computer Weekly.</ref>
• Ashford, Warwick (July 4, 2017). "WannaCry a signal moment, says NCA". Computer Weekly.
• Wainwright, Rob. "Europol SOCTA 2017". European Police Commission.

To the editor who took offense to my naming them, I am sorry. I am still getting familiar with the etiquette here; I had thought that, since we had an extensive discussion about my editing, they would be interested to know the next step in the discussion, and I honestly thought they had reviewed my edits fairly closely. I meant no disresepect. I appreciate that they took the time to weigh in here.

One last point -- I hope the admin who closes this discussion will take note that the discussion was started on Twitter, by a competitor, and a good deal of discussion and coordination took place off Wikipedia, among editors who may or may not have undisclosed conflicts of interest of their own. I don't know how much that should impact the outcome, but I hope it is at least taken into consideration. Kvng, I appreciate your taking my good intentions toward Wikipedia, and I hope our competitors in the field share my wish to approach Wikipedia with curiosity and deference to the judgment of more experienced editors. -Cindy (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, this is not about cyber attacks in general, it is about this specific term an if we need an extra page for it. It is possible - and you are very welcome to - improve the cyberattack article without getting into "generations".

Second, the sources you provided seem to be very much "inspired" by the same source - most use the same language and imagery. Still no evidence that this is used at independent conferences, in research papers, etc. Even if the terminology were picked up by some companies, the most it would warrant would be a single remark in the cyberattack article.

Third, if a reputable source reports that some of your company talked about something, it does not automatically mean that they endorse that it is a term that is widely used.

For full disclosure: While I found this through Twitter, I have been a Wikipedia editor for many years and have no relation at all to the cyber security or ties to any vendor. I actually consider it a good thing that it brought attention to this matter. Averell (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is clearly a marketing term, there's no definition of fourth gen, third gen, second gen etc. The blogs cited above for fifth gen contain infographics directly created by the vendor who created the term, and the text is in some cases copied and pasted from their website. For reference, I do not work for a competitor, or even cyber security vendor or reseller. GossiTheDog 14:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment: WP:PAYTALK. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a marketing term. It is not actually used in the industry. It needs to die so people use legitimate terms. I am a security researcher with 15 years experience admittedly at a Checkpoint competitor. I've never heard this term used outside Checkpoint's marketing material. It's clearly designed to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt craiwill 21 August 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like internet garbage based on results of Google searches. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Really interested in the rationale for relisting this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to digest here. I appreciate the extra time. ~Kvng (talk) 01:53, 27 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Stamler[edit]

John H. Stamler (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)

Delete for lack of notability. This person was a prosecutor for a small county in New Jersey. Not a ticket to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - he was the DA in a county of over 500,000 people, which is not small. He easily passes my oft-cited standards for the notability of lawyers. In addition to his paid work as an attorney, he was president of the NJ DA's association. Awards are named in his honor, and the biggest police academy in New Jersey bears his name. There is significant coverage of him and it appears that a reasonable search for sources was not made of him prior to this nomination for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC) P.S. I added a second New York Times citation, and easily could have added more. Seriously, a good-faith search was not done for easily discoverable online sources. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having not-independently-notable things named after them is not a notability criterion for people. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep President of the New Jersey DA's association + NYT obituary = GNG pass. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an obituary blurb in the New York Times is not in and of itself an automatic notability freebie, especially for a person whose notability claim is local to the NYT's local coverage area. It can certainly be used, but it doesn't clinch anything all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't really see significant coverage of the subject except in the Asbury Park obituary. The NYT obit is only a couple paragraphs long. In any case, the legal notability is simply policy: the article must nevertheless pass WP:GNG. Happy to revise my vote if better sourcing is found. SportingFlyer talk 02:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The scope and breadth of the reliable and verifiable sources about the subject support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much better than this. Nothing stated here is an automatic inclusion freebie that entitles him to have an article just because he existed, but the sourcing is not strong enough to get him over WP:GNG — three of the seven sources aren't doing anything at all, because one is a primary source, one just glancingly verifies the existence of a scholarship that was named after him (which is not a notability clincher) while containing no content about him, and one verifies an entirely tangential fact about his widow rather than being about him. And while the other four are better, they aren't convincingly adding up to enough coverage to confer a "notable because media coverage exists" pass — they all represent the local level of coverage that any county prsecutor in any county would simply be expected to have in the local media, and the fact that a person's local media market happens to have The New York Times in it does not reify into an instant notability-clincher in and of itself either. Given the length of time he held the position, it's plausible that enough coverage to get him over GNG might exist if somebody digs deeper than this — but improved coverage would have to be shown to exist, not just theorized as possible, before it changes the notability equation, and the volume of coverage shown right now is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- There was basically a consensus to delete the first time (especially if you discount the wikilawyering and WP:ILIKEIT arguments). There is nothing particularly notable about his career. And the resurrection of the New York Times obit = automatic notability argument is really aggravating. That has been shot down as a claim to notability in so many other deletion discussions. The second New York Times article doesn't really help much, it is about a new police academy that just happens to be named after him. Having a building named after you is not auto-notability either (especially since that building would not meet notability standards for its own article).--Rusf10 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "just happen" to name police academies after people, buildings like the John H. Stamler Police Academy are named to honor notable public figures. The naming of this Academy in Stamler's honor is reliably sourced and notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and the list of people who have had buildings named after them includes every single mayor who ever mayored in every town that ever had mayors at all. So the fact that a piece of public infrastructure happens to have been named after someone is not in and of itself an encyclopedic notability freebie in the absence of a GNG-passing volume of career coverage while the person was alive, which isn't what's been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obits in major newspapers (like the East Coast Edition of the New York Times,) are a standard indication of notability at Wikipedia. The fact is that SIGCOV of his work as prosecutor is available in news archives, even though CRIME stories like this one about Rolando Marcelo, a recent Yale grad, who lost his job, picked up a knife, and: (Block Party Ends With Slaying of 4: [FINAL Edition] San Francisco Chronicle (pre-1997 Fulltext); 30 May 1989: A4.; Suspect Fights With Guards, AP. New York Times, 03 June 1989: 1.30.) would probably have an article is it happened now. But Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Passes WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, having an obit, even in the New York Times, is not an automatic free pass over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-assisting source being shown. Every individual person who died on 9/11, frex, got an NYT obit, but they weren't and aren't all encyclopedically notable. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Editorofthewiki and Bearian. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per detailed and sourced arguments above. Ross-c (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could be expanded, of course, but the sourcing passes GNG. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:35, 27 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. Strong consensus to keep with sources found under alternate name (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim Ferrera[edit]

Joachim Ferrera (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)

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

Article on a Boer soldier has had no sources for preceding 11 years. A search on Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to find any. I also checked "Joaquin Ferreira", however, this appears to be an entirely different person. Fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found nothing in Google, Google Books, Newspapers.com or Newspaperarchive.cvom; Fails WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Joachim Ferreira - Has entries in the South African Military Who's Who [15], Volume V of the New Dictionary of South African Biography, and the Biographical Register of Swaziland to 1902. His name is correctly spelt Joachim Ferreira according to these sources, which I believe meet WP:ANYBIO #3. Additionally he meets WP:SOLDIER because leading a large portion of the Boer force at Majuba, a significant battle, counts as combat command. Kges1901 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move and withdraw delete per discovery of correct spelling by Kges1901. Since the reason there was no evidence of any sources on BEFORE was, apparently, because the name was misspelled in the title the rationale for deletion is obliviated in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move per Kges1901. Satisfies GNG and SOLDIER. The nominator could not find sources because the article is at the wrong location. The man's name was Joachim Ferreira. The article has been expanded since nomination and there are more sources in GBooks etc. James500 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have effected the page move. The page is now at the correct spelling. James500 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per correct spelling and appearance in dictionary of national biography. Significant military commanders of independence movements are often notable, even when the force size involved is small.Icewhiz (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important commander who has an entry in the dictionary of national biography. Meets NSOLDIER. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Duke of Nonsense^{What is necessary for thee?} 16:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4-cylinder 400[edit]

4-cylinder 400 (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:NTV, WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 16:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have restored the references that another editor removed in this edit. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as now has two reliable sources added to the article, and there are other reviews quoted at the official website although they need tracking down, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain and Atlantic306. James500 (talk) 19:57, 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 3D&T. This obviously doesn't merit its own article, but since there is relevant content at the new target page, a redirect is warranted for now. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brigada Ligeira Estelar[edit]

Brigada Ligeira Estelar (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 about something that does not meet WP:NPRODUCT. Includes POV. » Shadowowl | talk 16:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Total lack of sources. My personal BEFORE on the usual places (Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, newspapers.com) fails to find any RS. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT. As an instruction manual it (probably) doesn't qualify under NBOOK. Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing anything that would count as an RS. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge into 3D&T. Unlike that page, there is no Portuguese version to look at to determine if there are additional sources cited. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. (Lots of unsourced fancruft popping up at AfD …) Jbh ^Talk 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Dyment[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of an artist, with no strong notability claim and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. Two of the three footnotes are to directly affiliated primary sources that cannot carry notability -- but while the one other footnote is a reliable source, one media hit is not enough coverage to get a person over WP:GNG all by itself as the only notability-supporting source in play. And the notability claims here are not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this, either.
As well, the sources proffered in the first discussion (which I did not know about until after this nomination was already completed) are not bolstering his notability to any significant degree, as the vast majority of them are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things — and besides the anon IP's one source that was already in the article anyway, the only other source that represented substantive coverage about him is from a university student newspaper, which is a type of source that can be used for extra verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by stronger ones, but not a source that counts toward the passage of GNG in the first place. So I am not willing to withdraw this just because I didn't know about a prior discussion that I had no responsibility to psychically know about — the sources that were offered as proof of notability in the first discussion are not actually proof of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the discussion in the previous AFD from earlier this month. I looked at the sources provided by 96.127.244.201, and I find they are sizeable in-depth reviews (e.g. Canadian Art). The Globe and Mail references are not just a glancing namechecks. The Art on Paper reference is not really visible, but it appears to be starting at least a paragraph discussing Dyment. The Queens Journal article discusses his work in detail. So does the Toronto Star review. The coverage appears sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and therefore, as in the last AFD, the obvious conclusion is: keep. Ross-c (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The strong RS are the two long in-depth Canadian Art reviews, and the Toronto Star review. Add to that the fact that he is a coauthor of a piece in the MOMA collection, and that he gets many more than trivial namechecks for his curating work.... and you have basic GNG. I'll also paste in what I said under the last IP my ISP assigned me(96.127.244.201): "I saw two decent-sized reviews in Canadian Art. He did a CD that became part of the NY MOMA collection as well. The article is very CV like and needs to be rewritten... Also mentioned for his curatorial work in the Globe and Mail here and here, and in Art on Paper here, as an artist in C Magazine here, and an excellent critical review in the Queens Journal here. And here is a significant review in the Toronto Star of his artwork. That's enough for me, so I will say keep."96.127.243.251 (talk) 06:04, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Adelbi[edit]

Irfan Adelbi (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)

Someone who competed in the Olympics. No mentions of any medals won or achievements accomplished. Does not pass any notability guidelines such as WP:N or WP:GNG. And definitely a short article with no purpose otherwise. Striking out nomination, nominator withdrew though can't be closed due to a delete opinion Redditaddict_6_9 01:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Per this article, he scored 65/70 in an event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_at_the_1984_Summer_Olympics_–_Mixed_trap

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All Olympians are notable, regardless of whether they received a medal. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games says: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Eastmain, I've always thought that N:OLYMPICS reflect[s] the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have [...] participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. (emphasis mine). Are they instead always notable without any consideration to sources? IMO the subject specific guidelines supplement policy, but cannot supplant it. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The all olympians are notable rule does not make sense when we consider the history. Not every member of every tug-of-ware team was notable for example. We need to insist on better souring than is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - We have an article for every athlete who competed in Olympic tug-of-war. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  ​​All the medal winners, not all competitors, but both of you are arguing from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, without mentioning how this would affect notability. I think the question here is whether the presumption of notability applies in all cases, or if it's only used as an indicator that an athlete is likely to be notable. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is all the competitors, medal winner or not. See Tug of war at the 1908 Summer Olympics and Tug of war at the 1920 Summer Olympics--every competitor who participated has an article, the only red links are the two team members who came as alternates and never actually competed. Because N:OLYMPICS has been interpreted as meaning all Olympic competitors are notable. If you disagree with that proposition, fine, but an AfD on a single competitor probably is not the right place for that discussion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS, contrary to Johnpacklambert's ridiculous assertion that the criteria doesn't say what it clearly and obviously says. Given his similar history at numerous other AfD's, I question whether he is truly here to build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you disagree with NOLYMPICS, start an RFC. The references are sufficient based on that guideline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator withdrew in the linked closure in the delist. I get the arguments here, and perhaps WP:NOLYMPICS is worth a discussion via RFC at some point here in the future. As it stands now, the article is within the community-based consensus on what is notability for an Olympian. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – as stated in the above comment, I do support the article being kept. Those who have voiced Delete are wrong, as I had been before. Per policy, this shouldn't be deleted. The majority opinion is "Keep" and the only votes for "Delete" are uninformed. AfD should be closed now, though that isn't likely. Redditaddict69 15:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't really argue with WP:NOLYMPICS, it's pretty straightforward. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NOLYMPICS . Don't see how this is non-notable. Kpgjhpjm 17:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per previous discussion passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g. Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan. Ross-c (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry I'm late to the party again, but I would ask the keep voters to please note: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. This is from the FAQ of WP:ATH. I'm not saying there is no coverage, but I've looked again and I haven't been able to find anything even approaching the level required to meet WP:BASIC, so unless the keep !voters have some pointers towards where sources might be found, I'm recommending delete. Courtesy pining everyone since this is a reply to all.​​​​​​​​​— Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not for righting great wrongs. If you have a problem with the implementation of WP:NOLYMPICS, namely that every Olympian is notable regardless of coverage, start an RfC. But that's what it says, and the subject meets that criteria and should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Smartyllama: My problem isn't that you're using the guideline, my problem is that if you go to the top of the page of that guideline, click open on the FAQs section, and click open on the section that says How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?, the guideline clearly says that it does not replace GNG or BASIC. This is true, AFAIK, for ALL subject notability guidelines, not just WP:ATH, which WP:NOLYMPICS is a part of. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Alpha3031: From WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline." Meeting WP:NOLYMPICS, or any other SNG, is enough. If SNGs didn't mean anything, we wouldn't have them. Smartyllama (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Smartyllama: SNGs mean a lot. They show how to interpret GNG for, e.g. NCORP, and they tell us how likely something is notable before looking at the sources. I really don't see how you can discount the top of the page which says that they don't replace GNG and allow notability to the absence of sources though. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      But I don't see how you can discount WP:N, not to mention longstanding practice, which says that meeting a SNG is sufficient for notability. If you don't like that, open an RfC. Smartyllama (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      That's fair. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Smartyllama: I was looking at starting an RfC, but it appears there is already one on this topic at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, as well as a more recent one here about WP:NSPORT specifically. Is one year sufficient to apply WP:CCC? EDIT to clarify: What I'm asking is if this AfD thinks consensus has changed since the NSPORT RfC.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Alpha3031: The sports RfC said further discussion is needed to determine "The appropriate result for an article at AFD about a sportsperson where they verifiably meet a NSPORTS criterion, but various levels of effort have not yielded significant sourcing (especially for older athletes or athletes from non-Anglophone locations)." To my knowledge, that has not happened. Perhaps it's time, but this isn't the place to have that discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      @Smartyllama: I'm not opposed to a no-consensus close passing this and all other similar cases to a RfC, nor am I opposed to taking more time to find appropriate sourcing. I may bump this to RfC myself if some of the other keep !voters comment or if I finally get rid of this blasted cold so I can decide how to do this properly. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Competed in Olympics which is a thing of notability, and thus passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Knightrises10 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we get this closed already? It probably got missed earlier because of the issue with the relisting, but consensus seems pretty clear to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Smartyllama, I'm fine with a keep close, but what exactly is the argument here? WP:DEADLINE? — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alpha3031: to get this afd closed... it's been a week and everyone wants keep. Redditaddict69 02:32, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Rinomato[edit]

Carlo Rinomato (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)

Semi-advertorialized biography of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Two of the five sources here are his own self-published content about himself on his company's own website, and a third is his IMDb profile -- none of which are notability-assisting sources -- and the two that are actually media coverage are both advertorials in digital marketing "magazines", not reliable source coverage in real media. All of which means that exactly zero of the sources here count for anything at all toward getting him over WP:GNG, and nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his sources from having to get him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, after failing to find any other sources. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 01:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would say Redirect, but he's not notable enough to have anything to redirect to. Redditaddict69 03:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my failure to find WP:SIGCOV in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not much information in any of the cited sources to build a biography (though there is some [perhaps overly] vivid description of his style). I couldn't find any reliable sources that would make it pass GNG except the few trade magazines which the nominator has reasonably discounted. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 19:43, 27 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. Multiple ideas about refocusing this page have been proposed, but future discussions should be on the talk page, not AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lolita (term)[edit]

Lolita (term) (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 was deprodded due to being a possibly controversial deletion by Davey2010. The reason for deletion is that it fails WP:NOTDICT. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Sam Sailor 15:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Personally I believe the term goes beyond DICEDEF and is a notable term in it's own right, Failing that It should be redirected back to the Wikidictionary site but personally I believe it's notable enough to warrant an article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because the term itself is a notable encyclopedic subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is only a dictionary definition and I don't see it becoming much more than that. It's a word that gets used for a variety of semi-related insults for young women and it's hardly unique in that regard (as you can tell by the current state of the article). For those suggesting that it could be more than that, could you elaborate? In the fully-formed version of the article that you anticipate, what does it look like? What headings are there? What I anticipate is what the Wiktionary article is: here. At the very least, let's redirect. Matt Deres (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So, I do agree with Matt's rationale, which is why I seconded the PROD. There are mentions of how it is used, e.g. [...] child exploitation material depicting the sexual abuse of children, which might be considered somewhat encyclopedic, but it's not something that would be out of place in a dictionary either. Right now, the article is essentially the definition and that of some synonyms collected in one page. I don't really think a redirect is required, since it's an unlikely search term. A more likely search, Lolita directs us to the disambiguation page in a hatnote, which provides a Wikitionary link. I'd think adding a ((wikt)) box to the main article as well as providing an overview of the wider topic might be sufficient. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Matt and Alpha303 or redirect to Wiktionary article.HouseOfChange (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The talk page mentions a former plan to redirect this page to "nymphet" or vice versa. Essentially synonyms, based on the same Nabokov novel, both "Lolita" and "nymphet" are used to erode sympathy for children whose attention-seeking behavior is perceived by a pedophile as "seductive." If the article survives, it should not be "forked" from nymphet, and its usage should be discussed as we do other dehumanizing terms such as Yid or bitch. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, words are quite capable of being notable enough to justify their own article, as in this case. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @ Michael Bednarek, Sam, Xezbeth, Davey2010. You saying that words can be notable unto themselves is fine, but I'd like to see some justification that this word can meet that criteria. I'm suggesting we delete or redirect to Wikt because it's clearly only a dictionary definition now (in fact, the entry at the actual dictionary is higher quality than our supposedly encyclopedic entry). You're suggesting it can become more than that. No problem; I'm usually an inclusivist, so you don't have a high bar to jump over to get me to switch sides. :-) Give me an idea of what you think it will become. Obviously you're under no expectation to actually improve the article right now, but could you provide supporting references or even outline what the new, encyclopedic, article would look like? When I think about it, all I can come up with "It got used in a book and then became a widespread term of abuse, meaning X, Y, Z." and that's not exactly a compelling article. Matt Deres (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even ignoring the dozens of novels, plays, music and films with Lolita in their titles and the critical analysis of these individual works, we still have the following, and enough RS to meet GNG for Lolita as a general subject of academic interest:

• Lolita in Peyton Place: Highbrow, Middlebrow, and LowBrow Novels of the 1950s
• The Lolita Effect, a notable book, in of itself, on the subject. See: The Lolita Effect.
• "Reviving Lolita? A media literacy examination of sexual portrayals of girls in fashion advertising"
• "Sex, cell phones, privacy, and the first amendment: when children become child pornographers and the Lolita effect undermines the law"
• Lolita speaks: ‘Sexting,’ teenage girls and the law
• "Lolita Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Amplifying Preadolescent Girls’ Voices in Conversations about Sexualization, Objectification, and Performativity"

I think this qualifies as an independent notable topic for a Wikipedia article. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Coffeeandcrumbs, I think that's a good point, and I'd support broadening the article to cover Lolita#References in media in more depth instead of remaining a dictionary definition and being deleted for it. It might even become the main article (I can see Sources and links also being covered in an article about the idea), in which case it might be appropriate to simply spin out the "book" sections and instead use the main article to cover the wider impact on literature and culture. I guess I'm not to sure what exactly the article is about.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an alternative to deletion:

• Split Lolita into Lolita (about the academic and literary usage) and separate Lolita (book)
• Move Lolita (term) → Lolita (slang) and redirect and merge to Lolita#Slang
• Redirect the left-over Lolita (term) → to new primary topic about Lolita

The topic has expanded beyond the original book, overcome the slang, and become a topic of academic interest on child sexualization in the media.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carter[edit]

Rachel Carter (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 indication of notability, the one source in the article is primary. Searches for more sources mostly led to a different person of the same name. There just doesn't seem to be significant coverage by reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's much too hard to search for her with her common name. It would help if someone closer to the source could provide better references or confirm that they can't. As an aside, the New Zealand paraclimber looks to be rapidly headed in the direction of justifying a page, but perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Ross-c (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Her name plus "theater" and "oklahoma" should find her. I did see a couple of reviews of her plays, and added them. There are mentions on the Oklahoma Christian University site too, but these are not primary. There is no WP:SIGCOV and I think this should be deleted. I have already taken out the section on her thesis, which was unsourced, not notable and reads self-promotional. Tacyarg (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability under WP:BASIC, and it doesn't look like she meets WP:CREATIVE either. Directing a minor theater company gives no presumption of notability in and of itself. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable local theatre director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taimane Gardner[edit]

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

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

Subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Some coverage exists, but only from regional sources, and nothing to indicate a claim to significance. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

I don't mind this article being under review as I haven't finished adding more sources/info. However, "Category:String musician stubs" contains over 60 articles and most are less significant/famous than Taimane Gardner. Stubs such as Bo Ya, Pierre Jamet, Francesco Petrini and many others are almost empty with no sources and they have been up for at least a year or more. Gardner is one of the more notable string musicians in the US so deleting this would a shame. I'll add more national/international sources to the article. Thanks!Nyeeye (talk)

*Keep I would also like to note that the references used for this article include The San Diego Union-Tribune, KHON-TV, MidWeek, The Honolulu Advertiser and other reliable sources. If those references don't indicate a "claim to significance" then I don't know what does. There is also no promotional language in this article and every line has a legitimate reference. Plenty of unsourced/promotional musician stubs out there but this is not one of them. Nyeeye (talk)

Noted, but I nominated on the grounds that the subject fails WP:NMUSIC, Wikipedia's criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles. It encompasses 12 categories, but their are several I am most concerned with. For example, many of the sources cited by the article are based around interviews with the subject or are re-writings of press releases, and so while they may come from RS they are not independent of the subject. For example, the Waldorf School article cited ([16]) is actually attributed to another story by a Hawaiian magazine which heavily featured an interview with her father. Another major concern is that the article subject lacks a clear claim to significance; for example, WP:NMUSIC states that musicians should have won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award or Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart., and I have seen no RS that indicate she has fulfilled either requirement. International exposure is another issue, as the article's claim about her exposure stems from a one paragraph entry in a 2008 listing article about Hawaii's music scene ([17]). In short, the subject has accrued local (possibly regional) coverage, but fails to meet one to many of the criteria laid down by NMUSIC, and the amount of connections between the sources cited and the lack of truly independent coverage of the subject is also an issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator seems determined to delete this article but I did make a minor addition to the Career section and I will continue adding more sourcing. As I stated above, please look at almost any of the 62 articles in "Category:String musician stubs" where most have little to no referencing, content, or claim to significance. Many of these stubs have been up for years and have never been nominated for deletion. String musician stubs like Christian Lemaitre have been up since 2006, Emma Christian since 2005, and many others in that category. They have no major award nominations, no hit singles, and very little information at all. If the nominator wants to claim that Gardner's article is deletion material but not the others then so be it. Please be consistent with your opinions, standards, and deletion nominations.--Nyeeye (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A lot of the coverage this person has is local, but it isn't all local; there's pieces from media in Hong Kong and Cairns, in addition to a mainstream music magazine and a couple of seemingly decent local sources [18], [19]. Not slam-dunk notable, maybe, but just enough to push her over the edge, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to just enough coverage in reliable sources. For the nominator @SamHolt6:: the subject is notable if she satisfies WP:GNG OR WP:NMUSIC. Or other notability guidelines. You cannot choose which notability guideline is not met in AFD if the subject satisfies other guidelines. Particularly WP:GNG. Ross-c (talk) 13:31, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitnami[edit]

Bitnami (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 directory-like page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Socialized with no other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Regards, KCVelaga (talk • mail) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Plenty of in-depth coverage found via Google News alone (some not in English, which needless to say is not a problem for sourcing). Furthermore, for some reason the article does not currently mention that the installer library is prominently used by some of the most widely-known web development applications, e.g. XAMPP and PostgreSQL. Modernponderer (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the nominator appears to misunderstand the article they nominated on a fundamental level, as it is about a well-known product and not the much-lesser-known company behind it (which does not have an article). Modernponderer (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Stating that coverage exists in Google news is not helpful at an AfD. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• When it is this obvious, I must disagree: it most certainly is helpful in that case. Modernponderer (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough coverage coming from independent sources.[20][21] Rzvas (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: The links offered above are little better than republished press releases for the company, i.e.:

• "Bitnami announced plans to open source its Cabin platform, which is billed as a mobile application for controlling Kubernetes," from SDX Central, and
• "StackPointCloud is partnering with Bitnami to allow customers of its Kubernetes-management software to run the Kubeless open-source serverless software on top of their Kubernetes clusters," in GeekWire

These sources discuss company's plans and aspirations, apparently based off company-supplied materials. They do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:ORGIND and are insufficient for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:K.e.coffman: I'm not sure why you ignored my previous comment on this, but I will restate it more clearly: WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND do not apply to this article because it is about a product and not the company behind it. (This is very clearly stated in the very first sentence of the article, in fact.) Modernponderer (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually I see now that the guideline does refer to products and services as well (highly misleading title notwithstanding). Nevertheless, the reasoning behind your nomination still doesn't make sense in light of this fact. Modernponderer (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would propose to keep this page, since installing open source software is not always easy and the Bitnami stacks really help in that - and that kind of information should also be on Wikipedia. But... indeed it should not be(come) an advertisement for the financial/commercial side of Bitnami (the cloud option?).Black Raven (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Yegulalp, Serdar (2008-03-24). "Bite-Sized Server Apps With BitNami". InformationWeek. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

     The article notes:

     What I enjoy most about open source is when people take existing products and twist them around into new shapes. I've long had high regards for PortableApps for doing that, but thanks to a commenter on a previous post of mine, I now have a new crew to watch in that regard: BitNami.

     BitNami is a series of repackagings of common server-side open source applications, deployed in simple packages that take mere minutes to set up and get going. Think of it as PortableApps for a server: WordPress, MediaWiki, phpBB, Drupal, Joomla, and many more server-side apps are available as BitNami packages, with more on the way (like SugarCRM). All BitNami packages include the app itself, a Web server, and whatever database solution you might need.

     Since many of the common applications you need have certain dependencies that have to be satisfied (PHP, Perl, Apache, MySQL, etc.), a BitNami "stack" is best if you don't already have the other components needed for a given application. For instance, if you want to give WordPress a trial whirl on your local Windows or Linux machine, you can snag the BitNami version, unpack it locally, and run it there. If you like the results, you could then export the database from WordPress to a flat file, reimport it on a server where WordPress already is set up, and pick up where you left off.

  2. Meyer, Dan (2017-08-01). "Bitnami to Open Source its Mobile Kubernetes Dashboard". SDxCentral. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

     The article notes:

     Bitnami is a contributor to various open source projects like Helm, which is a Kubernetes package manager; Monocular, which is a search and discovery front-end for Helm Chart repositories; and Ksonnet, which is a configuring application running on Kubernetes.

     Bitnami also leads the Kubeless native serverless framework. A serverless architecture is similar to containers, designed to reduce the amount of overhead associated with offering services in the cloud. This includes the ability for a cloud provider to dynamically manage server resources.

     ...

     Bitnami was founded in 2003 by Daniel Lopez and Erica Brescia, with an initial focus on packaging installers. The company released its first virtual machine image installer in 2007; a cloud images product for Amazon Web Services (AWS) in 2008; and pushed into containers beginning in 2015.

  3. "BitNami Launches MongoDB Stack To Develop Apps As Demand Scales For AWS-Based Services". TechCrunch. 2013-11-07. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

     The article notes:

     The company offers its own cloud hosting service to run on Amazon. That service provides automatic backups, built-in monitoring and other features to manage apps in the cloud.

     ...

     In 2012, BitNami emerged as a key partner with AWS for the launch of its new marketplace. BitNami, with its 80 stacks, helps app developers bundle what’s needed to operate as a service in the marketplace. On AWS Marketplace, BitNami offers WordPress, Drupal and dozens of other apps that can be used on a pay-as-you-go basis.

     ...

  4. McKenzie, Cameron (September 2014). "Product of the Month: Bitnami cloud services' reputation sets it apart". TechTarget. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

     The article notes:

     If an organization is running a pre-configured software stack as a virtual image in Microsoft Azure or as an Amazon EC2 image, there is a high probability the software in question was freely pre-configured by the folks at Bitnami. They've been giving away complex software stacks for years, but giving away installers, virtual machine images and preconfigured instances is only part of the Bitnami story. The other part is their surprise emergence as a competitive provider of enterprise server management systems and software-stack hosting services in the cloud.

     Nobody knows a Bitnami system better than Bitnami, so it only makes sense that organizations using a free Bitnami image would also turn to the company for its cloud-based hosting services. For its customers, the Bitnami cloud hosting service provides a variety of server management functions, including monitoring, alerting, capacity management, backup automation and disaster recovery, all of which are essential when an organization looks to move their operations to the cloud.

  5. Fisher, Timothy (2009). Ruby on Rails Bible. Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons. p. 5. ISBN 047044021X. Retrieved 2018-08-26.

     The book notes:

     BitNami Ruby Stack
     
     A rising contender to Instant Rails comes from a group called BitNami. They provide easy installations for many open source applications and frameworks. One of the pre-packaged stacks that they provide a simpler installer for is the Ruby stack which includes everything you need to do on Ruby on Rails development, including Ruby, Rails, and MySQL. Unlike Instant Rails which is only available for the Windows platform, the BitNami Ruby Stack is available for Windows, Linux, and Mac platforms. You can read more about the BitNami Ruby Stack and download it from http://bitnami.org/stack/rubystack.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bitnami to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:41, 26 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ble (band)[edit]

Ble (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)

This topic has nothing but primary hits in Google. I would expect a still-existing band to have more coverage than that if they were actually notable. Delete per the general notability guideline as lacking independent, secondary, reliable sourcing. Izno (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you Google search the band name + one of the singers, you can find plenty of articles about them. By the way, this AfD appears to have been miscategorised: what's it doing in Fiction and the Arts? It should be Media and Music. Bondegezou (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I performed the exact suggestion and found nothing, so, please provide a source (several, in fact, to prove notability) for an article under this topic instead of a vague handwave to Google. For example, I found this source by using the artist's name, but the phrase "Ble" does not appear there. (Instead, "Mple" does.) However, this source does not treat the topic with any significance, so it is not suitable to prove notability under the WP:GNG.

  You are always welcome to add a categorization. --Izno (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed the category. --Izno (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  There's stuff like [22] and coverage through articles more on Tsatsou, like [23] and [24]. Bondegezou (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Using the Greek names, I get far more results, such as this which may be useful if the machine translation from Google is indeed accurate. The article as is asserts that the band charted on the Greek charts, but most of those have not been archived so it's impossible to tell. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ι remember that the first two tacks ("Νοιώθω ενοχές" & "Φοβάμαι") form their 1996 debut album Φοβάμαι were hits in those days; the songs got a lot of airplay. Moreover, the band's singer Theodosia Tsatsou made great impression to the public with her appearance on stage (see: Νάντια Δενελάβα, "Μπλε" [in Greek], Music Corner.gr), and rose to stardom overnight. In the band's website it is stated (in Greek) that the album went gold, and then platinum; this is not of course an independent, third party source, but the statement must be true. It is also true that soon Th. Tsatou left the band, and Ble/Mple didn't repeat their initial success; their course was somehow meteoric, Ι think. ——Chalk19 (talk) 08:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom + band has little to no notable events nor songs. Redditaddict69 12:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been relisted a couple times. I wanted to leave this comment, which was left on my talk page by TPH, in case someone who wants to find coverage has the time to do so so that we can wrap this AFD up (since I have not gotten around to it--The International 2018 was last week and I was busy not doing anything but watching Dota 2):

  "Ble" appears to be a mis-transliteration from the Greek. Searching for "Γιώργος Παπαποστόλου" "ΜΠΛΕ" gives me far more Google results, some of which may confirm notability. See what you can make of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  --Izno (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted as G11(non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola University of the Pacific[edit]

Loyola University of the Pacific (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)

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

Fails WP:GNG and reads like an advertisement The Banner talk 11:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I marked this G11 with the reason: " Promotional article without proper independent sources to establish notability. Example: "An integral education is promoted, through participation in a wide range of extracurricular activities." Not one of the sources is independent, reliable in-depth coverage: they are all passing mentions or incidental mentions used to cobble together the article. See the first three refs in particular: they are about past presidents, not about the Uni.."96.127.243.251 (talk) 17:00, 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Osho Times[edit]

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

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

not a notable publication, self-published promotional magazine Acousmana (talk) 22:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to RajneeshRajneesh movement. The person was very notable and still has a following, but apart from the printed publication's history, this is now only about a website which is not particularly notable. —PaleoNeonate – 23:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. No Independent sources supporting as references.Accesscrawl (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about deletion. May be a case of WP:INDAFD Accesscrawl (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No clear indication of notability evident by citations to independent reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect as per above. Either to Osho or - I think better - to Rajneesh movement, Ross-c (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contemporary website, Rajneesh movement doesn't exist anymore. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rajneesh movement certainly does still exist (and the Rajneesh movement article says that). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Current Status" says that The movement has survived Rajneesh's death. citing Urban 2005. There is no mention of Rajneesh Movement in any of the current news except that it has transisted into Osho International meditation resort in Pune. Moreover, I can also vouch that hippie movement exist, but there is no significant happening. In a nutshell i would say, the Osho times website is contemporary, the movement is not. Redirection to by-gone era doesn't convince me.Accesscrawl (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be the one who's right, feel free to !vote delete. —PaleoNeonate – 07:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]