< 21 August 23 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hakki Subentekin[edit]

Hakki Subentekin (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 film maker. Nothing found in a before search. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:53, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obinwanne Okeke[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Obinwanne Okeke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely promotional . I doubt there is enough reliable material for a NPOV article DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources not cited in the article, I found one article in Pulse.ng that may qualify, although I'm not sure about the reliability of that website since they don't provide information on their staff. However, one article isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:19, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M/I Homes[edit]

M/I Homes (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)

Can only find passing references for this company, and some press releases and a couple of trade publications. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Tacyarg (talk) 20:53, 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Li Daoxi[edit]

Li Daoxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The notability tag was removed without any explanation from the major contributor in 2015. No reliable sources were ever provided for the notability of this person. Mys_721tx (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 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. Any merging can happen outside of this AfD by editors being bold (and following WP:BRD if necessary). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South Portland Historic District[edit]

South Portland Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a brand new "sub stub" article, created counter to the general interests/wishes of WikiProject NRHP. The current article contains no text information besides what is already included in the row for this item at National Register of Historic Places listings in Southwest Portland, Oregon. I don't speak officially for the WikiProject, but I believe this is the general opinion, that we prefer to have no article at all so that a redlink shows in the corresponding NRHP list-article. The editor who just created this has in the past (several years ago) created many hundreds of "substub" NRHP articles, but stopped doing that I believe because of the negative feedback they received. We don't want this. Doncram (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about whether the topic is notable, it is about whether separate sucky articles are wanted, irritating readers who think a bluelink means something, and irritating editors who might develop articles if someone else hadn't already claimed credit as creator, while not even trying to serve readers. If the creator of this article or others went and created 26,000 sucky new substub articles, progress in developing NRHP topics would immediately halt. No one wants to develop these. Note, if we wanted these, we would have a bot run done. We don't want these. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly certain the vast majority of editors have no interest in who "claimed credit as creator". I want to develop these 26,000 notable places on NRHP. I am sure there are many others who feel the same. James500 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Doncram on this point, that replacing red links with redirects or single-sentence stubs discourages some editors from creating new articles on NRHP-listed properties (real articles, with infobox and at least a few paragraphs), because it has done so for me in several instances. Although being able to "claim credit" for creating an article is far from being my primary motivation to carry out the necessary research to create a real article for WP, it is one motivating factor. Having credit permanently taken away, by someone's creation of a single-sentence stub (which, in the case of the editor who made this one, usually remains extremely short for years) or a redirect reduces my motivation to spend time doing research for an actual article. SJ Morg (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded in terms of formatting puffery, not in terms of substance. For another example of how that and the belief that an NRHP listing warrants a separate article amounts to a net negative to the encyclopedia, see how Andrew Berg Cabin has been recently split off from Andrew Berg. The new article is little more than an infobox and a dumping ground for the same tired old incestuous "sources". A bigger problem is that the new article's lack of substance has the effect of confusing the NRHP-listed cabin with another cabin moved to a more accessible location to serve as a museum piece for tourists. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SJ Morg: The national register is a WP:PRIMARY source, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:GEOFEAT is the correct presumption, but per my understanding WP:GEOFEAT requires cultural heritage plus a little extra to be notable - you can be a little short of WP:GNG. My contention is it's not sourced enough to be there yet. SportingFlyer talk 10:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction/clarification. SJ Morg (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SJ Morg: Thanks for weighing in here. I can appreciate your dislike for single-sentence stubs, but for the record, I converted the redirect to a stub after Doncram nominated the redirect for deletion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would object if this were simply closed with advice to restart/continue the discussion elsewhere. This is the discussion; kicking the can down the road, to a different venue, is not a responsible closer decision. The goal of an AFD closure should not be to end the AFD, it should be to resolve the issue. It has been many years since the only AFD outcomes were "delete" vs. "not delete". This was covered at length in a recent deletion review about a different AFD (about national capitals). The main advice there was that an open discussion should be continued, rather than closed simply for sake of removing from AFD open list of items, if there is substantial ongoing discussion / outstanding issue about a real resolution. Offhand, I would judge from the discussion that the closest to consensus here is to redirect/merge. It seems to me that multiple editors here agree that creating the substub article perfunctorily was a mistake, given view that it would be better covered within the existing neighborhood article (at least for now, and perhaps permanently, depending on what there is to say about the historic district when an editor actually chooses to seriously develop the topic). The main content currently is a nice map prepared in 2016 by User:Ipoellet which would go to the neighborhood article. This would be a different outcome than my own preference; it's not a big deal but I happen to assume that a separate full article will be justified, and therefore think that it should not have been redirected at all, that redlinks should have been left in the NRHP list-article and in the neighborhood article (thereby leaving invitations for someone to develop an article on the topic), and I proposed by the MFD that I opened and then by this AFD that it should be deleted outright to restore those redlinks. --Doncram (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the redirect was appropriate. The historic district was mentioned in the neighborhood article. But now we have a standalone article, which you admit is justified, but you still want to delete the article? This is a terrible use of AfD and editors' time. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there was quite a lot of discussion, there is not yet clear consensus where to keep as is or to merge/redirect. As Doncram says, it seems counterproductive to just close this and move the discussion to the talk page if more discussion can be expected here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I didn't look that far into it, and was a main reason I commented instead of !voting. I just know that many articles have been created for the purpose, and I have seen closings where the can was, to me and according to the above possible dispositions, inappropriately "kicked down the road". An admin closing not long ago was "keep" to discuss possible merging on the article talk page because AFD was not the place. That That blew my mind. The good news if kept is that there may be 111 contributing buildings giving room to expand. Otr500 (talk) 19:49, 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) Daask (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hawk MM-1[edit]

Hawk MM-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source is an apparent self-published source. I've been unable to find anything else about the weapon online that's not a.copy of or based on this source, including mirrors of Wikipedia. This is probably a hoax or at least a fictional weapon possibly used in a movie, though the only source for that is the unreliable Internet Movie Firearms Database (IMFDB). BilCat (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a merge and redirect to Manville gun as being the best way to structure this. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming reliable sources can be found for movie use, I'd support a merge. - BilCat (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in Jane's Infantry Weapons 1991-92 and was said to have been in service with special forces in the USA as well as in Africa and Central America. There is also an advert for it from Hawk engineering Inc in Jane's Defence Weekly of 1998. I am now convinced it is a real weapon so am happy to add my support to keep - Dumelow (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, pretty much all of the sources out there are highly circular, self-referencing and dubious. It's hard to find solid ones underlying all this. Dumelow's books are a good start. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 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. Inclement weather ahead Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Planet S[edit]

Planet S (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 bi-weekly local newspaper; fails WP:GNG, given that no one outside Saskatoon appears to have noted its existence. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 19:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 19:23, 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 speedy keep. withdrawn by norminator, no vote for delete (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hair tie[edit]

Hair tie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability. No sources. I cannot find WP:SIGCOV. Tacyarg (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 22 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) 18:37, 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) 18:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However some discussion should probably take place about this and Scrunchie. They obviously are functionally the same thing, with most mentions actually flipping between both names in an article. I have absolutely no idea which one is more common. Nor would I be surprised to find out, for example, that scrunchies are a specific variant group. In any case, with such a complicated potential merge case, I would not advise having it out here. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 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 no consensus. No consensus has occurred herein. Some arguments are stronger than others, with some being essentially or potentially opinion-based, without providing any guideline-based rationales for deletion or retention. The discussion is mildly leaning delete from an !vote count, but deletion policy is not based upon majority rule. North America1000 10:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Funk[edit]

Kristi Funk (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'm pretty sure that 99.9% of surgeons are non-notable, and the fact that this one has operated on two celebrities and then released details about those procedures on line doesn't make them any more notable. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:27, 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. Hut 8.5 20:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suja Suriya Nila[edit]

Suja Suriya Nila (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 does not demonstrate notability: winner of 2 beauty pageants (1 unsourced), 2nd prize in another, and runner up in another. A quick Google search does not dredge up any additional WP:RS. Lopifalko (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:35, 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. Essentially, sources were supplied and none of them were rebuked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main Event Entertainment[edit]

Main Event 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)

Completely unreferenced and semi-advertorialized article about a company with no credible claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists -- it has to have a proper claim of notability, supported by enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:CORPDEPTH, and does not get to keep an unreferenced article that reads like it was written by the company's own marketing staff. We're an encyclopedia, not a free public relations platform. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Ifnord suggests there are scores of newspaper articles, but doesn't cite any specifically. Please list a few, so people can evaluate them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, the obligation is on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE. However, one could look at: [4]; [5]; [6], [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]... I underestimated when I said scores, a Google search "Main Event Entertainment" -wikipedia shows well over a thousand hits. From flipping through the first half dozen pages, the bulk of them are mainstream news or media sites. Ifnord (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is poorly referenced (true mess there!), but the company has significant media coverage and at least 1 book mention (result of a lazy Google Books search). -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:41, 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. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Caldwell[edit]

Sara Caldwell (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)

Cannot find WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to support notability. Tacyarg (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a book author, her Jumpstart your awesome film production company book is held by 574 WorldCat member libraries. The article should be nominated for the cleanup. -- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 20:07, 29 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 Mars sample-return mission#Potential for back contamination. (non-admin closure) Daask (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Committee Against Mars Sample Return[edit]

International Committee Against Mars Sample Return (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)

ICAMSR (International Committee Against Mars Sample Return) is a small project by one individual, Barry DiGregorio, focused on promoting fringe theories regarding a NASA coverup of current Mars life, and an impending and lethal Mars-invasion brought upon a sample-return mission. Their few mentions by the media do not amount to notability, and their work is most certainly not notable, not relevant, and definitely not reliable nor influential on science and space policy. Material published by ICAMSR is sourced by the owners & operators of the fringe Journal of Cosmology. Although this article has been sanitized to some degree, the Charter and performance of ICAMSR fail Wikipedia standards on scientific reliability and notability. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional context - I researched the group and its leader, Barry DiGregorio, and familiar names came up:

I am sure I can dig additional entertaining material, but this is enough. ICAMSR is not notable, not relevant, and definitely not reliable nor influential. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, AfD discussions are allowed to run at least a week. Adding the paragraph at the target is good, but I suggest that this discussion be allowed to run for the traditional 7 days before deleting the original. See the end of section 3.5 of [{WP:AFD]]. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I crafted and introduced a new paragraph on ICAMSR at Mars_sample-return_mission#Potential_for_back_contamination. Please feel free to review and edit it. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:52, 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 no consensus. There's good agreement that this article needs a lot of editing. Perhaps major trimming, and/or refactoring with related articles. Possibly WP:TNT applies. There is, however, no consensus to delete it. The number of pageviews is not a factor in determining notability. On an administrative note, I'm over-riding User:Redditaddict69's relist, partly because WP:RELIST argues against a third relist, and partly because you shouldn't relist a discussion you participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Appropriation (music) (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)

Since the creation of this article other closely related articles such as Cultural_appropriation and Ethnomusicology have expanded to cover cultural appropriation in general and through music. There's been suggestions on the talk of the article page to delete it as this topic is already covered in other articles there should be no need to keep this poorly sourced article anymore. Other related articles like aforementioned are already covering the topic with better sources and can expanded in the future. MayMay7 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 14:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 14:38, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Sugar Clinics Ltd[edit]

Apollo Sugar Clinics Ltd (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:NORG notably WP:ORGDEPTH. The sources are routine annoncements and affiliated sources and a couple that don't mention the subject. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cole Chiori[edit]

Paul Cole Chiori (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 the sources are mostly PR stuff fed to the sources and barely rewritten eg source 2 says

whereas source 3 says

the rest is puff or WP:INTERVIEW Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:56, 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. Hut 8.5 20:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Dreshaj[edit]

Nick Dreshaj (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)

In the article there are two games with FK Dečić that would not confer notability, as the Montenegrin First League is not fully professional, besides those two participations are unsourced. His participation in other nonprofessional US leagues doesn't confer notability either. Last, in addition to failing WP:NFOOTY, he fails GNG. 1l2l3k (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama:, you are right, and I tweaked the rationale of my nomination. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:33, 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 redirect to United States Senate election in Iowa, 2008. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reed[edit]

Christopher Reed (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)

Failed U.S. Senate Nominee, only reliable sources are about controversies. No reason to keep since he's never held office / Fails WP:NPOL and WP:N. Unsure about WP:GNG since there is coverage, that's the main discussion here. Redditaddict69 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't critical, but it could be beneficial to merge the actual controversy details to the same location, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:42, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiori Peter Cole[edit]

Chiori Peter Cole (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 business person. The sources are 1: passing mention, 2 and 3 puff pieces (one finishes up with "Once again, happy birthday to a young fabulous and intelligent entrepreneur of the 21st century and I wish you more fruitful years on earth in Jesus name Amen." and the other calls him "legendary Rev (Dr) Cole Chiori," whereas he doesn't seem to be either a doctor or a reverend) 4: a passing mention and 5: I'm not able to access but seems to just be proof that he won a "Scream youth award" whatever that may be, I could find nothing much on the web. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:43, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SpeakersBank[edit]

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

Advertisement since its creation, substantial conflict of interest editing, no chance of meeting WP:NCORP. My one concern is that Speakers Bank, an atoll in the Indian Ocean, could be a possible redirect target as a misspelling, but I don't think it's plausible enough to justify a redirect. TeraTIX 13:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 13:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 13:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 13:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TeraTIX 13:26, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted Cole Chiori[edit]

Gifted Cole Chiori (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:NBOXING none of his titles are included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment and the sources are too weak to pass GNG as they are routine announcements and articles that are essentially WP:INTERVIEWS Dom from Paris (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per discussion. (non-admin closure) Fhsig13 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ka Karoon Sajni Aaye Na Baalam[edit]

Ka Karoon Sajni Aaye Na Baalam (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)

Does not justify WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 22:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 22:37, 29 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 merge to Cockpit (2017 film). and Redirect, per policy. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mithe Alo[edit]

Mithe Alo (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 justify WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Niloy (keep talking) 07:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:11, 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 speedy keep. Merges should be discussed on the talkpage, As the nom and a !voter have gone with Merge I see no reason why this cannot be done, Didn't need an AFD discussion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 15:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda (song)[edit]

Zinda (song) (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)

Can easily be merged into Bhaag Milkha Bhaag (soundtrack). Does not satisfy WP:NSONGS - Vivvt (Talk) 20:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A note to the Nom, that an AfD should not be triggered for a merge request - that can be done directly or at |proposed mergers

|

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Clendenin[edit]

Bob Clendenin (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: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Electric Tour[edit]

The Golden Electric Tour (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:NTOUR. --woodensuperman 13:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 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. Notability is not temporary, but GNG requires multiple sources, and it appears we have at most one. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani (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 does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is consideration that various CSDs may apply, pending that, there isn't any additional support on the AfD grounds and so I think a relist is in order
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:02, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 17:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Court, Gray’s Inn Road[edit]

Trinity Court, Gray’s Inn Road (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)

Commercial property, not listed, fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. Kleuske (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:40, 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 merge to Investigation Discovery (European TV channel). (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Travel & Living (UK and Ireland TV channel)[edit]

Discovery Travel & Living (UK and Ireland TV channel) (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 enough here (and no evidence of standalone notability) for a separate article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the page has now been moved (without discussion or explanation) to Discovery Travel & Living (UK and Ireland+)Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The movement wouldn't appear to be a resolution to the AfD - Closer please be aware to make sure AfD closes properly
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (with a note to the previous relist)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 08:16, 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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 07:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peyman Hooshmandzadeh[edit]

Peyman Hooshmandzadeh (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)

Notability aside, WP:TNT applies here. This reads more like a puff piece than an encyclopedia article. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't fall under the criteria of  notability that seeks significant coverage in reliable sources. If Farsi sources are available then provide them here. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to 96.127.244.27. If Farsi sources then provide them here. Until then we need to discard any such possibility. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:37, 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. Consensus is to keep, but not necessarily in the current shape or format. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 07:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years[edit]

Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years (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)

Just trivia. Why not 25 years? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the Malaysian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the New Zealand Parliament who have served for at least 30 years. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 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. Consensus is to keep, but not necessarily in the current shape or format. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 07:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Malaysian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years[edit]

Members of the Malaysian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years (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)

Just trivia. Why not 25 years? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Members of the Australian Parliament who have served for at least 30 years and Members of the New Zealand Parliament who have served for at least 30 years as example. Are you considering both of them as trivia? Panji Keramat (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 is a nice round number. I would support changing the inclusion criteria to either 29 or 31 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:55, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FonePlus[edit]

FonePlus (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)

Looks like it was upcoming in 2006, but was never released or renamed or something. External link is no longer valid. Fuddle (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 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. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 06:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leman Copley[edit]

Leman Copley (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 subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per source searches. Also, the sources in the article are primary, and do not serve to establish notability. North America1000 23:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a keep and a delete that states the subject is notable. I'd like to hear more on if the subject is or is not notable before we make a final decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 03:36, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PrefixNE[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PrefixNE (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 software product. The review at [26] reads too promotionally for GNG, and the article suffers from the same promotional issues it had a decade ago. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 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. and a recommendation to further discuss potentially more accurate page names on the talk, no consensus exists here to justify my unilaterally moving it as a result of this close. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ayagunna[edit]

Ayagunna (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)

What is this? A god? A fictional form of a god? Has no references, fails WP:GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 21:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 14:09, 29 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. Despite multiple problems noted, it's clear that this is a notable controversy, no matter why it started. Arguments to WP:NOTNEWS do not apply here because this policy does not forbid coverage of all newsworthy events but just asks that the lasting notability is considered. In this case, while the article should probably not stay as it is, an article on Corbyn's political stances or similar will probably be required sooner or later if the main article gets too long and then this material can be merged there. SoWhy 11:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wreathgate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wreathgate (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 relates to a current controversial news item. The name itself comes from an opinion piece in a right wing journal. We have no idea if this is going to be reported after the initial controversy. ---Snowded TALK 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination was open for a few hours and was a speedy close as the request was not properly formulated. As you say "we should wait some time to see if it is worthy of an article" -----Snowded TALK 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian is neither a Pro-Labour paper nor a pro Corbyn paper-- BOD -- 21:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian endorsed Labour in the 2017 general election and the 2015 one. EddieHugh (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
apologies ...i used to it being a more liberal/ centre leaning paper.-- BOD -- 21:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant; the question at AfD is whether a topic is getting WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Reeve in his book One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God" [1] the terrorists who murdered the athletes at Munich were not even burried in Tunisa but where buried in Libya-- BOD -- 22:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Simon Reeve (2000). One Day in September: The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God". Arcade Publishing. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-1-55970-547-9.
If you keep removing the content you don't like(which is pretty much everything), don't be suprised when it is similar to what's on the Corbyn article. Super-Mac (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it perhaps the WP:COMMONNAME because it was the name given to the controversy on here? Tunisia wreath row is better. Jeremy Corbyn Tunisia wreath laying controversy might be a more accurate title. This is Paul (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one of those articles that we will have to wait and see if it has a WP:LASTING impact, but this really doesn't pass notability despite the keep notes. These are basically all repetition of the Daily Mail story. Per WP:NEVENT (Derivative reports and reports under common control cannot be used to verify each other, nor does mere repetition necessarily show the kind of effort that is good evidence of a significant matter. The fact that there are 12 keep votes and the relevant notability policy has not been cited even once is pretty telling - if this policy isn't going to be followed at AfDs, it really should be changed to reflect practice, because this is very frustrating every time there is a "breaking news" related AfD. Seraphim System (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)


Comment The BBC has clearly shown in a news report from Inside the Jeremy Corbyn wreath row cemetery in Tunisia, Corbyn would have stood throughout all ceremonies in the designated area where all dignitaries typically stand during ceremonies within the covered area of the enclosed Palestinian section of the Hamman Chott Cemetery. This report from the respected BBC totally undermines the Daily Mail original article and all that has risen out of it. Is Wikipedia about the truth or recording hysteria whipped up by a misleading press story.-- BOD -- 16:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked in the talk page and you didn't reply. Which specific claim by the Daily Mail in this case was demonstrably false? Please quote the claim. Super-Mac (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adeeb moha (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC) — Adeeb moha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • On the upside, it's always nice to see the rush-to-create-an-article-on-this-news-cycle's-headlines-and-then-pile-on-keep-at-afd-because-WP:RAPID-is-great-and-WP:DELAY-is-lame wikiphenomenon apply to political figures outside the US (with apologies if it's common with UK politics, too, and I just haven't seen). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate on what you mean? (Not about his involvement, but what that means in the context of what I said). Do you mean that it's not sufficient to redirect to Corbyn because Corbyn is not at the center of this? There are other possibilities (e.g. one of the nation-nation relations articles) but as it stands basically all of the sources have "corbyn" in the headline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs updating - Sheikh isn't in. But this Tunisia row has now expanded to two different significant political figures - which would make sense covering in a single article (as opposed to coverage on Sheikh's and Corbyn's pages separately. There's already quite a bit that can be written up in the standalone article (there is some edit warring both on the Corbyn page on and on Wreathgate - seems length/scope changes in both) - I don't think that the Corbyn article, long term, should contain all of the details on this particular scandal - a spinoff makes sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a false argument, there is likely never going to be much Sheikh content. A sub page like this a great way to get round BLP rules and duplicate Noise about a subject. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many editors above have suggested discussing a rename, no one disagrees. The name of the page is not relevant to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Political positions taken by politicians are appropriate topics, even living politicians.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Corbyn page is very long, and the antisemitism sections are burgeoning, with new material emerging almost daily, well, weekly. It is reasonable to break some of the enormous volume out into stand-alone article, that, as in this case, are also usefully linked form related pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, there's no way that WP:NOTSCANDAL can apply. It's not as if this is some strange advocacy position that was started up - the controversy over the incident was, and is, significant, written about in numerous non-opinion pieces. It has been participated in by individuals on both sides as well as better editors working to keep it approaching NPOV. None of the five criteria apply and so it doesn't function as a legitimate deletion reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSCANDAL does not apply to a political topic with INDEPTH in major media on both sides of the pond. As for WP:RECENTISM, we do keep articles on breaking news, and we follow WP:RAPID to avoid the error of deleting significant events merely because they just happened. I suspect, however, that Simon223 mistakes this for a new topic, the wreath laying ceremony happened in 2014 and was a public event covered by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wreath Laying incident (blast but Wreathgate is an stupid name) was dormant until some anti-Corbynists dredged it up like... last week... as part of the ongoing horror show that is UK politics in the age of Brexit. This may refer to an incident in 2014 but it is WP:RECENTISM and it is mostly just rumour mongering. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dredging up might have been by those against Corbyn but balanced coverage has occurred. The recentism issue was covered well by E.M.Gregory and it is well beyond rumour mongering by coverage, basic underlying details etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was written too WP:RAPIDLY and nominated for deletion too WP:RAPIDLY. But that fact is not a reason to delete. Oh, and since my comment above, Frank Field's resigned from the Labour Party over Corbyn, antisemitism, and bullying (he'll sit an an independent,) but his resignation has started a another news cycle with the BBC taking a deep dive into the wreath as I write this. WP:SNOW in the forecast.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is a reason to delete, I just pointed that fact out. I don't have enough information to make an opinion or valid vote so I'm staying out of the voting here. Redditaddict69 02:02, 31 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. – Joe (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 1998 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Iran at the 1998 FIFA World 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)

PROD removed, content is covered by Iran at the FIFA World Cup, 1998 FIFA World Cup and 1998 FIFA World Cup Group F, this article is unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran at the 2006 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination) closed as delete Hhkohh (talk) 07:13, 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. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BOXX Technologies[edit]

BOXX Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertorially-toned page on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you counted those as reliable sources, this is supposed to be an article on a company, not a listing of a niche company's products. --Calton | Talk 14:00, 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. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granny ( Game )[edit]

Granny ( Game ) (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)

Game seems to lack notability. Most news coverage provides tips on how to beat the game. Meatsgains(talk) 01:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 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. Editors arguing to keep this page have not answered the legitimate concerns raised with the provided sources. Vanamonde (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust (roleplaying game)[edit]

Bloodlust (roleplaying game) (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 has been unsourced for preceding 11 years. A search on Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR fails to find any sources. Article fails the GNG for lack of SIGCOV. Attempt to remove through WP:PROD (not WP:BLPPROD) was contested [36] on the grounds it "isn't a BLP". Chetsford (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper nom by clueless editor The nom apparently believes that tabletop roleplaying rules are "designed to be used for the play of a game exactly like Monopoly or Stratego" [37]. Nobody who does not understand the text of a Wikipedia article in its plain meaning can legitimately nominate that article for deletion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O High King, I specifically asked the editor in question if he wanted those struck through, and he never replied. Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, well, why didn't you just go ahead and do it? You were told it was a personal attack, why leave it in place? Also, continually referring to me as "O High King" could also be seen as mocking by me and others. Just for the record, if you're going to go down that road you should use the full title of "Oh Greatest High King", anything else is an insult! :-) HighKing++ 15:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
O Greatest and most glorious High King, when I am having a discussion on my Talk page about the appropriateness of text I have posted, and propose a course of action, I will not by courtesy pursue that course of action until I hear from the person concerned. This is particularly true after my first attempt to redress courtesy issues with this editor - my NOTFORUM deletion of content from the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD - was rebuffed, even upon his further reflection. Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Building on what HighKing said; in order to keep these AfDs on some semblance of topicality, I've tried to avoid responding directly to your many declarations that I've been personally discourteous to you and that you, therefore, "have to ridicule" me [38]. However, moving forward, could I kindly ask you raise the issue of my discourtesy at ANI with diffs (at ANI)? That will help us keep discussion at AfDs focused and topical. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added four reliable sources to the article - three in French, one in German - and have deleted the unsourced, in-game content. User:HighKing, could you take a look at the new sourcing before your !vote goes final? Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Ideally, new comments should appear at the bottom. I've also added another indent to your statement above to keep with normal styles and make it easier to read. It would also be very helpful if, when you are asking for references to be examined, you post links here rather than expecting an editor to investigate changes in the article and extract references.
You appear to have added the word "noted" to the lede along with this Masters Thesis by Chouzneroux. I'm not sure why you believe this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The game is only mentioned once in-passing and the reference doesn't appear to support your insertion of the word "noted".
The next reference added appears to be this German review of Hyperborea, the German version of Bloodlust. The first step is to check if the reference is from a reliable source but I don't think this website is anything we can rely on. They're a German couple that like playing video games and role playing. For me, this fails WP:RS.
Next, it is a reference for issue 8 of the Marauder magazine. It is difficult for me to ascertain whether this is a reliable source. It appears to be a website set up by a group of players. I know that the RPG world is small but ... even so, this appears to be fairly niche.
Overall, nothing here has convinced me that this game meets the criteria for notability but I will say that we are dealing with a non-English language game in an already niche (although growing) area. HighKing++ 13:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On threading, I added my comment as a reply to my own !vote, as is certainly sometimes done at AfD.
On the thesis, my point is that the author chose this specific game by Croc as one to discuss, out of all of his games, which is why I tied the source to "noted".
The German source is self-published by independent industry professionals and therefore reliable per policy; I chose this particular one but many other reviews exist particularly in French and German. I also suggest that we all need to get better at evaluating this sort of content, as these sources become increasingly important with the decline of print media and their immediate successors.
Marauder is a major French e-magazine which has established consistent quality in its field and consistent production values in each issue; it is not "a website set up by a bunch of players". I trust that the closer will take these factors into consideration, and the principle that WP treats non-English sources and English sources equally. Newimpartial (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On threading, usually not at AfD's. Can happen if it makes sense but usually not. No biggie, but your new comment would have been better entered at the foot of the AfD so that a closing admin gets a sense of the chronological order of the discussion, which could be important if your new references were good and changed consensus. A closing admin would have known, chronologically, which !votes occurred before your new references and weighed the previous arguments accordingly.
Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong thesis, but they one I'm reading doesn't discuss Bloodlust at all and is merely listed among other RPG titles. That, btw, does not make this game "noted", only that it is in a list in a thesis. Big difference. Be careful about WP:INTEGRITY and WP:SYNTHESIS.
You say that the German source is self-published. That's a big negative, see WP:SELFPUB. Also, be aware that the standard for sources that support citations within an article is a different (and lower) standard to that required to establish notability. I wouldn't object to this source being used to support a fairly trivial factoid, but it could not be used for an extraordinary fact and rejected completely for establishing notability. What might change people's minds are other reliable industry sources proclaiming the German couple as experts in their fields (and not just, as their YouTube channel suggests, a couple of avid gamers).
When you say "major" French e-magazine, what are you basing that on? And the quote about "a website set up by a bunch of players" is supported by the About Us page on the website.
In general, I have noticed a very big gap between what you consider a reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability and what others consider to be the criteria. I realise that part of the problem is that we are dealing with a small niche-interest subject (RPG) and then even smaller topics within that subject such as individual games. But that does not mean that the requirements for notability change. HighKing++ 17:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By "major", I mean "relied on by those in the specific field for consistently accurate content and acute analysis", which is, I think, the relevant definition. And there is a specific "carveout" in NPUB for those who have demonstrated their expertise outside of self-publishing, whose self-publications can then be considered RS. My sense of the world is that this category of sources will become increasingly important to WP in general, as the academic track fills up with junk journals and the advertising-supported professional publications implode. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, OK. I note you didn't address all the points, that's fine, and I assume you are solely addressing the point on Marauder. Can you please show where the "major" French e-magazine was "relied on by those in the specific field for consistently accurate content and acute analysis"? As to the carveout in NPUB - I do not know which point you are addressing, it could be more than one. Please, when responding, try to reduce any potential misunderstandings and try to be clear on which specific point you are addressing. I am aware of the specific carveout in NPUB - I've used it myself once or twice - but ... therefore ... I also know how that needs to be qualified. In my case I was able to show that the person spoke at major conferences and had published a book on the subject. Can you point to anything that shows this to be the case for your source? HighKing++ 12:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both the magazine and dissertation references are "independent" (and indeed, I can't imagine how a graduate dissertation would not be "independent" in this context. What a curious statement). Newimpartial (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing these at? On the French Wikipedia [39] there are 3 sources: one is a blog (the description used by the site's author) by a guy named "Jérôme" (no surname given) [40], one is a post on a message board [41], and one is a product entry on a site called legrog.org [42] that describes itself as an "interplanetary organization" and says (on its About page) it accepts reader contributions from "across the universe". Chetsford (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked nicely, I found the dissertation on Google Scholar [43] and the Maraudeur magazine I found using french-language Google [44] . ;). Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This MA thesis has only been cited in four places (two of which, themselves, are just other theses), in none of those from a cursory glance was the material on Bloodlust used [45], and the author (Vincent Chouzenoux) appears to have an H-Index of zero (0). I'll refrain from commenting on the Marauder thing. Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are misreading SCHOLARSHIP; it is not intended as a Notability guideline. Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It's a reliability guideline. And unreliable sources don't contribute to notability. I'm not sure what you mean by "again" though? I've never mentioned SCHOLARSHIP previously AFAIK. Are you thinking about this exchange in a different AFD you had with FourViolas regarding SCHOLARSHIP? Sorry if I've misunderstood you. Chetsford (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial, this is not the first time that you are being obtuse with points made. If not that, you engage in mocking others or openly attacking them personally for which you've been warned. I now suspect you are setting out to deliberately disrupt as many AfDs as possible. It is blatently clear that Chetsford is pointing to SCHOLARSHIP which is part of WP:RS which, of course, means that a reference that fails RS *cannot* be used to establish notability. If you continue to disrupt AfDs in this way, I will have no choice but to report your behaviour as disruptive. HighKing++ 16:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chet, my apologies: I thought you had borrowed FourViolas' misinvocation of SCHOLARSHIP before, since you had both made the same mistaken argument (that if Designers & Dragons did not meet SCHOLARSHIP, it would not be a RS for Notability, which is entirely incorrect). SCHOLARSHIP is a content guideline, not a Notability guideline, so it is inappropriate to wikilawyer specific provisions of SCHOLARSHIP when deciding about Notability. Theses published in French on RPGs simply can't be evaluated using the same criteria as, say, biochemistry, where findings specific to a single work are likely to be either uninteresting or wrong. This is a good example of why IAR exists - to pre-empt that kind of lawyering.
High King, please try to empathize with my perspective. Someone who has never participated in RPG AfDs nominates 15 articles for deletion, mischaracterizes all of them in the nomination (either out of ignorance or intentionally; I'm not sure which interpretation is AGF in this case), mockingly dismisses sources [46] [47] and belittles awards [48] [49] that are well-known and understood by anyone knowledgeable in the domain, as well as expressing [50] [51] real or feigned ignorance of the works under discussion (though the former seems unlikely given this claim [52] ). While my reaction to this was, at times, intemperate - notably in the Dominic McDowall-Thomas AfD - I submit that the disruptive effort on balance was quite on the other side.
Chetsford consistently called a WALLEDGARDEN what is not, he repeatedly called FANZINES what are not (including sources affirmed as reliable at RSN), and nominated pages for deletion (I'm looking at Man, Myth and Magic) that are among the revered games of the genre. His response to being called on his nonsense in his initial AfDs was to double down and nominate more. Most recently he has made a second nomination of an AfD from a couple of months ago which I can only imagine was chosen on the basis of WIKISTALKING - I can't see how else he would have chosen that particular, sourced, article for deletion. So any "disruption" you feel that I have made needs to be placed in context: if there were a version of NOTHERE specific to RPG AfDs, that would be our Chet.Newimpartial (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I would like to take this opportunity to, again, encourage you to direct accusations against individual editors (including Wikistalking, which is particularly serious) to WP:ANI, instead of peppering them throughout AFDs. This helps keep the AFD focused and topical. While I AGF this was not your intent, some editors may perceive the relentless insertion of WP:WALLOFTEXT accusations against individual editors into AFDs as an attempt to derail or subvert the process by deluging it. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Chet. I was responding directly to the High King's accusation above, "this is not the first time that you are being obtuse with points made. If not that, you engage in mocking others or openly attacking them personally for which you've been warned. I now suspect you are setting out to deliberately disrupt as many AfDs as possible", by providing appropriate context. My practice is to respond to interventions in the venue where they are made, which is probably one reason it is easy to provoke me into displaying emotional responses in these fora, as you well know.Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I originally created the page ten years ago and indeed, it looks like I was negligent with sources. A good source would be the article on the original edition of this game in the paper magazine Casus Belli, issue n°67, january-february 1992. This article has been reproduced by the website , at the bottom of the page that describes it: http://www.legrog.org/jeux/bloodlust/bloodlust-fr French magazines (which is to say either Casus Belli or Backstab) have mentioned the game and its supplements over the 90's. The Métal edition was covered in the new version of Casus Belli, issue n°4, August 2012, but I don't have access to that magazine. Rell Canis (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kirbanzo (talk) 00:32, 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. Good consensus that GEOFEAT is satisfied, which does still require reliable sourcing, however that too appears to have been satisfied. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Pavilion[edit]

Patti Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another no reference article on a theater in Swansea. Third party searches found nothing on the venue, so it possibly fails WP:NBUILD.

Plus to my knowledge the venue is just a hall attached to a restaurant. I had been to the location and it certainly doesn't look notable enough to pass the cultural heritage requirement. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging it with school as exams are sometimes taken at this venue. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similiar AFDs:

notices about deletion sorting
:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 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) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:28, 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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 07:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas Theatre[edit]

Dylan Thomas Theatre (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)

This is another no reference article on a theater in Swansea. Third party searches found nothing much on the theater, so it possibly fails WP:NBUILD Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Similiar AFDs:[reply]

notices about deletion sorting
:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 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) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was. I was using Google though and wasn't sure if this qualifies or not. I know Dylan Thomas is famous but couldn't find any evidence that the theater is perhaps a historic site that satisfiy WP:NBUILD. It's one of those fringe cases so I thought I might norminate it and see. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this one is debatable, and so is the Townhill. The Patti theatre seems outright famous though. In any case, it's good to get some more refs into the articles. have a good night.96.127.244.27 (talk) 01:02, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Brookes University Rugby Football Club[edit]

Oxford Brookes University Rugby Football Club (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)

Rugby teams seem generally subject to GNG, and I am unable to find any non-local source that provides reliable Significant Coverage.

The article may well be liable to G11 (advertising). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:17, 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.
More