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) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Kumar Agrawal (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 since it fails WP:NACADEMIC. A WP:BLP about a professor who held the post of vice chancellor which is not the highest position, and had to resign due to controversy about fake academic credentials. [1]Indian Express DBigXrayᗙ 22:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 22:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the Indian system, vice chancellor actually is the highest academic position, as chancellor is a more ceremonial role. So vice chancellor of a major Indian university would clearly pass WP:PROF#C6. But Mahatma Gandhi Central University is so new that it might not pass the "major" part of the criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Even if subject's credentials (which allowed him to occupy vice-chancellorship) were not fake, as sources report, the institution in question would still fail WP:PROF#C6, as David Eppstein points out. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Night (Mark Peters 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)

Cover versions don't require independent articles per WP:SONGS (in specific WP:SONGCOVER). Due to the fact that Silent Night doesn't even mention other versions, the relevant content of the article can be merged to Mark Peters if isn't already there. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 19:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:COVERSONG so its contents do not need to be merged into "Silent Night" and no mention of it needs to be made there either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Walter Görlitz. FOARP (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:COVERSONG. We have no source indicating that this is a cover that became notable on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing my nomination now. Enough sources were found to keep it. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. Has issues since 2010. Nothing to be found on my search, and the article has IMDB and primary references. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• We need more Russian speakers to hang around. In English resources, there's press releases and a few articles on their games; here's a video article from IGN. It looks like a few dozen hits also for Google Books but mostly about their games. Igromania however has a detailed report on their 26th birthday and I'd be willing to bet there are other Russian sources out there, and that was mostly just from a survey of the video games sources (mostly in English)--I suspect given their involvement outside of video games, and the age of their company, they might be found in American or Russian sources outside that domain. This isn't a keep, but it's not a delete for me either. --Izno (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the sources identified by Izno seems to just about clear WP:GNG barely Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I will admit the Igromania reference is a very good one here, I think that at best this should be merged into World of Warships. The coverage it got is exactly because of that and I just don't think there is enough to build a separate article for it. Will try to look into Russian sources to add. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix. Although bearly, the company is notable as identified by three in-depth sources, which should be added to the article. Two are the one's listed by Izno, and Kotaku UK has a lengthy feature in English as well. Lordtobi (✉) 13:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American 14.1 Straight Pool Championship (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 tournament, with virtually zero coverage from independent reliable sources. De-prodded with the addition of a single reference from a questionable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that this is a non-notable tournament. Although games like 9-ball and 10-ball have taken over in the last few decades, straight pool/14.1 is historically the most notable game of pool and the American 14.1 tournament together with the World_Tournament are the most prestigious title for this game. Look at the name of the winners for the past few years and lookup their accomplishment in other games of pocket billiards. Many players come from across the ocean to play in that tournament. Also, I would not say that AzBillard is a "questionable source", it has been around for 20 years and it is the main reference on the web for anything related to pocket billiard (except for snooker maybe which has a lot of media coverage). --Prob2prob (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2018 (UTC)#[reply]
• Keep AZ biliards is considered a reliable source for pool, and cue sports. See WP:CUE. To that end, I actually have a working relationship with AZBilliards signed off by WP:LIBRARY to use AZ Billiards as a source for all cue sports articles. Whilst AZBilliards does write their own information, it usually simply re-posts information from other sources. One look at: https://www.azbilliards.com/tours_and_events/304-american-141-straight-pool-championship/stories/ will show you that there has been quite a bit of press for the tournament, most notably in 2014, and 2017.

It should also be noted, it's run for 13 years. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is one of the major events in pool (as distinct from snooker and carom billiards). Despite its name, it's not just a national title, but an international competition. Our article doesn't go into it, but it's actually the continuation of a much older event going back to mid-century (itself an outgrowth of challenge matches going back even earlier). In general, when organizers of an event change, we tend to treat it as a different event. In this case we have little choice, since the original event, the U.S. Open Straight Pool Championship, has also re-started under the original name (since 2016). AZ Billiards is not a questionable source; it's the no. 1 news source in cue sports, with a professional editorial board and journalists. Billiards: The Official Rules and Records Book (Billiard Congress of America, 2017 seems to be the most recent edition) will also be a source for this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WikiProject Cue Sports has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above commentary by Lee Vilenski| and SMcCandlish. Verifiable evidence of notability exists. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Haven Voice (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. I'm not considering WP:CORP because, as the admin who declined A7, observed, the article targets the publication rather than the publisher. Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Online sources are limited to West Haven Voice's online presence and two online indices of newpapers. Additionally, a Google newspaper search brought no results for other sources talking about the West Haven Voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurornisxui (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This article was created as part of this project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Newspapers by a student who is learning to create Wikipedia articles.

While the current article is missing other citations, that is an easily fixable problem. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Newspapers/Notability has a good discussion on how for local newspapers, one could use some more relaxed criteria of notability. Emu14 (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a look through the essay, and I found I disagreed with a number of the criteria to consider. For example, "Its leadership is repeatedly quoted in other reliable sources, with reference to their leadership title and their expertise on the publication's topic ...". In evaluating the notability of a person, that the person may be quoted a lot is typically discounted as a sign of notability, I think to some extent on the grounds that it might just mean that they happen to be the knowledgable person with whom a particular journalist is familiar, or because the person is issuing PR on the subject. To say that, if the person leads a newspaper, that it indicates notability of the newspaper is a stretch and, in addition, runs up against WP:NOTINHERITED.

"Changes in ownership or leadership are covered by other newspapers in its region or covering a similar topic": For businesses, these are generally treated as routine coverage (as with people's births, marriages, and deaths, corporate openings, acquisitions, and dispositions often receive perfunctory coverage, often driven by press releases, without the business ever receiving significant coverage on account of its actual operations. I'd say that applies to newspapers.

I wasn't intending to give the essay a thorough review, just giving my two cents. Largoplazo (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, see WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. By the way, I don't think I'd find my own community's comparable newspaper to meet the requirements. Largoplazo (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• When the student set the "ceased publication" parameter of The Wellesley Townsman infobox to read "penis",[2] was that part of their experience in learning to create Wikipedia articles? Also, the same editor created another copy of The Waterbury Observer today, copying the copyrighted highly promotional text wholesale from the newspaper's website, both of which are issues about which that editor had already been warned. The student needs to work harder on the learning, I'm afraid. Largoplazo (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for bringing the vandalism issue and the copyright issue to my attention. This is very serious and I will discuss this with the student in question. I appreciate your concern and time and care. Definitively this is not what I want students to be doing on Wikipedia. Emu14 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - shenanigans Largoplazo, you should not be reverting edits [[3]] on an article you're calling for deletion. This is a form of wp:own, as you're effectively "guarding" the article against improvement. Also, Coatrack? Surely you jest! I guess you've never heard of Time (magazine), The New York Times or The Washington Post? There is nothing unusual about listing notable contributors (staff) in an article, or about what they did which was notable. I am not reverting this so as to avoid an edit war, and ask you do restore the point. If you want this to proceed as a deletion request, it should be done cleanly. Markvs88 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits may be improvements and some may bw worsening the text. Even deletions can be improvements if they are made according to policy and the encyclopaedic purpose of Wikipedia. I have participated in AfD discussions where I suggested Deletion but I also tried to improve the article by adding and/or substracting from the text. But I agree the specific deletion (about staff) should not have been made. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you ever get the idea that once one has nominated an article for deletion, one must lay off of ordinary editing work on the article? No, ordinary editing in keeping with guidelines of other people's contributions is not a form of WP:OWN. And, no, I wasn't jesting in the slightest. Something unrelated to the newspaper that once happened to a person who had previously been at that newspaper isn't relevant to the newspaper. It provides no information to the reader about the newspaper. For that reason, I didn't believe it belonged in the article. You're welcome to disagree and discuss it, but it doesn't merit your characterization of my edit.

Also, it isn't clear why you raised this here, since your concerns about my edit have nothing to do with consideration of this article for deletion. It's off-topic here. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary editing would be fine. Reverting a cited newly added point without discussion especially when you're the one calling for an article's deletion isn't just a form of OWN, it *reeks* of OWN. And I brought it up here as it totally chills new additions to an article and you deserve to be called out on the carpet for it. Is that on topic enough for you?

On the other note, it absolutely contributes to the notability of the newspaper.

PS - Thanks, The Gnome. I appreciate your addition. Markvs88 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your invocation of WP:OWN goes against the entirety of that essay, the crux of which involves insistence, repetition, and a pattern of behavior. A single edit based on guidelines clearly explained in the edit summary doesn't carry even a whiff of WP:OWN, let alone reek of it, and the fact that I also didn't consider the article's subject notable doesn't change that. And, Oh! My! God!, a single edit in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines "reeks" and "chills" and "deserves to be called out on the carpet". This is unbelievable drama and I'm not buying into it one iota. Just, please, don't make up your own rules for behavior. And, no, it is still not remotely on topic here. That's what the article's talk page is for. Where do you think you'd be complaining about my edit if there didn't also happen to be a deletion discussion going on? Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that any time a person receives a single surge of attention for a single newsworthy event (which doesn't consistently suffice to find even the person himself notable, per WP:SUSTAINED), it suddenly adds notability to every place that person had previously worked, gone to school, spent his summers, etc., is an absurdity (unless it can be said that that previous affiliation had some connection with later notability, such as being a source of the person's experience or expertise relevant to the later notability; in this case, no connection has been drawn between a reaction to a depiction of slavery and having once worked for the newspaper). WP:NOTINHERITED. Largoplazo (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject does not yet possess adequate, independent notability. Wikipedia is not a scholarship project nor a depository of information. The creator's vandalism should be duly punished per policy but is irrelevant in deciding about the contested article; a subject's standing should never suffer from editors' actions. -The Gnome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astana Hub (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 a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I am unable to read the non-English references, but the English references I found do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Mainly press releases and general announcements of its launch. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe not WP:TOOSOON I've added several english language citations from 3 different sources. Agreed - the Hub hasn't done anything yet; question is whether or not that should be the crux of the inclusion criteria. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem to be general announcements of routine business which would not meet CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if deleted... suggest that the article title be added to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics#Associations with the associated citations. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on account of WP:TOOSOON, this kamikaze-created text. -The Gnome (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zu Online (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 video game that fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. All references in the article are from the official website of IGG, making them primary. I was not able to find any other significant coverage from reliable secondary sources that satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Have in mind MMOHut, MMOs, Onrpg, MMORPG and MMOSite are all unreliable sources per WP:VG/RS, and looking at sources from the first AfD, they are interviews on MMOSite and IGN (making it primary sources) or just a passing mention like Gamasutra one.

True, this exists https://www.engadget.com/2008/01/23/first-impressions-zu-online/ (it is the same as the Massively source in the first AfD word by word), but that is it Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:BEFORE did not turn up anything beyond sources deemed unreliable. As stated by nom, there is a single legitimate source. I do not believe a single RS qualifies as significant coverage. The IGN link mentioned in the first AfD that was used as a reason to keep the article is an interview from the developing company, which would be considered a primary source. The fact that this was supposed to be an MMO and the only mentions of it are MMO aggregates and routine interviews/press releases (and a single post on a Minecraft forum), speaks to the lack-of-notability. There are/were so many MMOs created, this is another one that disappeared into the dust. DeniedClub^{❯❯❯ talk?} 08:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NVG. -The Gnome (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Briefly discussed in Social Exclusion, Power, and Video Game Play: New Research in Digital Media and Technology p. 111 in a paragraph about racial options for characters in fantasy worlds, but as more of an illustrative example than significant coverage of the game. So, unless there are much better sources out there, probably can delete without prejudice against recreation, should someone locate adequate RS later. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Leith Clark. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Book (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:SIGCOV. It is effectively brand new and has zero coverage. scope_creep^Talk 16:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: little significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to suggest general notability. SITH (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject is not cited in third-party, independent sources. Not yet notable enough. -The Gnome (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Leith Clark. There is a little coverage of this magazine, e.g. [4], and 4 years isn't exactly new, but basically it is another Leith Clark project that she started after leaving Lula (magazine), and she's the notable element. Redirects are cheap, keep the history just in case, WP:ATD, and so forth. Bakazaka (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep thanks to a good WP:HEY. Consensus seems to be clear ever since RebeccaGreen added the new sources. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Len Cabral (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 sources; searching does not find significant in-depth independent coverage. There are a few mentions in local Rhode Island newspapers but little else. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE MB 15:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 01:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BASIC. I have added 7 references, from newspapers in Boston, New Mexico, Massachusetts and Ireland, as well as a book. I have also found reviews in the journal The Second Story Review (still to add), and there may well be more, so he may meet WP:CREATIVE too. There is certainly more information about him available in these sources than is included in this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep on the basis of two worthwhile sources, i.e. the Boston Globe (here) and the Hartford Courant (here and here). There's little else that qualifies as a significant source but this seems to suffice. -The Gnome (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject meets WP:BASIC with identified sources. Thanks to RebeccaGreen for putting in the work. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Pyrite (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)

One source of questionable quality; PROD in 2017 was replaced with a merge proposal, but this failed because the quality of the text was not deemed suitable for the target. The subject has questionable uniqueness and may be a neologism that hasn't found favor. Klbrain (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think the neologism explanation might be correct; can't find any authoritative uses. (The only thing that pops up in academic sources is about pyrites from the Rainbow field, Mid-Atlantic ridge - nah :p [5]) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, unsourceable, unreliable. In the spirit of the holiday season, WP:TOOSOON is suggested. -The Gnome (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best New Product Awards (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)

PR laden, not notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. No significant coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 10:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can only find press releases and regurgitated press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantial, independent reliable sourcing offered, or to be found. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William W. Johnstone (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)

Procedurally closed AfD previously, PROD contested. No claim to notability under WP:NAUTHOR, appears to fail WP:GNG as well. The guide for notability is not what authors write, it is what reliable sources write about the author. Ifnord (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there are no independent sources in the article (and appear not to have been even when the lists of books were included), they do WP:NEXIST, eg 'William W. Johnstone - At a turning point with new book', by Sidney Williams in The Town Talk (Alexandria, Louisiana) 6 May 1995, pp C1 and C3 [6]; 3 paras in 'Great books let readers care about the characters', by Jan Jeffus, in The Town Talk (Alexandria, Louisiana) 16 March 1997, [7]; 1 para in 'Romance and Westerns' by Jacque Hillman in The Jackson Sun (Jackson, Tennessee) 4 February 1995, p 5B [8]; a Kirkus Review of What The Heart Knows [9]; 22 lines of quote, with comment, in a review of The Defense of Elitism in the Star Tribune (Minneapolis) 26 December 1994 [10]. I would say he does meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can you explain which of the four points of author notability that meets?
    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. - A bare few local-paper book reviews do not constitute "widely cited".
    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. - Pulp westerns are not "a significant new concept, theory or technique".
    3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - Again I can't see how this applies.
    4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - There are neither monuments, nor exhibitions, nor "significant critical attention" (again a bare few local-paper book reviews are not "significant"), and I have not found any galleries or museums featuring Johnstone's works.

Laugh last person to propose this got badfaith accused of being a sockpuppet because admins like making that badfaith when they can't discuss reasonably. Cue the abuseradmins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C617:3E07:CF8B:8BAD:8AE0:1B34 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: #3, "The person has created .. a significant or well-known .. collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." As per reviews noted above. (PS I am not an admin.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simple point of order - Franklin W. Dixon is far more notable and he DOESN'T EXIST despite being the origin for the obviously-notable The Hardy Boys, which spawned not just a longrunning book franchise but television series and spinoff/parody works, as well as being an integral part of the growth of the "kid detective" literary/television trope (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KidDetective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.76.213.67 (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

1. Per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it is irrelevant what other articles exist or don't exist. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.
2. The article Franklin W. Dixon does exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per RebeccaGreen. In addition, Johnstone's books have kept selling after his death, are cited as exemplars of '80s pulp ("It purred with pleasure — and hissed with evil!") and appear to have been the springboard for his niece's... interesting writing career. There might not be much more to say than the article currently does, but there's enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A run of the mill state beauty contest winner. That alone does not make one notable, and there is nothing else making her notable. The sources are all the run of the mill sources we see on such beauty queens. The previous nomination was on a totally different person who is some sort of muscian. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think there is enough coverage to keep the article.Trillfendi (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Run-of-the-mill beauty contestant who placed well outside the winner's circle in the one national pageant she competed in. Fails WP:NMODEL. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete fails WP:NMODEL, but clearly has significant coverage --DannyS712 (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NMODEL and coverage isn't enough to show she is notable enough for an entry under WP:GNG guidelines. JC7V (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NMODEL. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Konstantinova (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)

As one could see this notability tag has been here for a while. I don’t think she meets notability for a model’s article (and yes, I did a Before) or an article at all, at this time. Sources given certainly aren’t reliable and I haven’t seen significant coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While not much in-depth, there is some, there does appear to be a reasonable amount of sustained non trivial mentions and the subject does apparently get more than their fair share of editorial fashion coverage. There are references which would probably allow more to be added to the current article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NMODEL. Although we're advised sources are a-plenty, not much comes up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's too soon for her to have a stand alone article here. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jamila Abitar (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)

Very little coverage, nothing in-depth, fails WP:GNG, and nothing indicates she passes WP:NAUTHOR. A nice review was added, although I am not sure that the source is an RS, as it seems to not have editorial oversight. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although she's been writing for almost 10 years, with very little coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all I know she may be a wonderful poet, but I have searched her unique name and I am not finding sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment She does have an article in French WP. None of the sources look very compelling, but I don't know the media. Perhaps someone with expertise in reliable French sources could take a look? valereee (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• True. I did look at it before opining delete, and it is very poorly sourced: to her blog, to things she published, one news article. Being published is not enough. Being translated does make it look probably that she's notable. But we really do need some sources to establish that she is. Anyone who manages to soruce this page should feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Me too. If this can be properly sourced to show notability, not above changing my position. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. Sourcing is quite poor and the French version fares no better: there, the sources are blogs and fringe sites. -The Gnome (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She has articles on the German, French and Spanish language Wikipedias, but there's nothing across all those that meets WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that subject passes WP:CORP. Withdrawn by nominator as well. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playtoy Industries (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 significant coverage for this defunct company. The article has no references. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being defunct is not a reason for deleting, neither is the article having no references. I have started adding references - there is some significant coverage of the company (I have yet to determine how much), and its products are held in the collections of several museums. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren’t my reasons for deleting. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have started adding references and more info from those sources. I have found coverage of this company in Newspapers.com extending for at least 16 years, with several lengthy articles from papers in Quebec, Ontario, BC, Saskatchewan, etc. There is more to add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on improvements made during the AfD (thanks RebeccaGreen). Now clearly has significant coverage and references, and passes WP:CORP --DannyS712 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good faith nomination since there is lack of coverage in online sources but coverage in offline sources also counts. Sdmarathe (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: per new sources. SL93 (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources individually don't support notability, but might do so in aggregate—I reviewed the full set of citations and scored them according to WP:ORGCRIT, then went looking for additional citations. I'm of the mind that there is only one citation (in the article) which speaks to the company itself (noting it's fate) and all others refer to individual toys or game genres. A radical thought - maybe circumstances like this call for transformation of an article from something about the company to something about the company's products (e.g. list of products type article). My source review for the article as of version 874618160:

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:SIGCOV states that " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Source 1 has the following content relating to this company: "Now, thanks to the early 1983 invention of a children's game called IQ2000 ..... the manufacturers, Playtoy Industries of Toronto, have a success - $250,000 in sales for '83. "This trivia adventure game is the biggest thing to hit our company," Playtoy president Jerry Smith told The Gazette. Since 1973 the company's most successful item has been Tri-Ominos, one of four word games it produces." That is certainly more than a trivial mention. If it just said "IQ2000, manufactured by Playtoy Industries of Toronto" that would be a trivial mention - it would not address the topic directly and in detail. But the actual article does address the company directly and give details (the president's name, the amount of sales from one game in one year, the previous most successful item, the fact that it produces that item and three others like it). I could go through most of the sources the same way. #4 gives the name of the vice-president of sales and marketing, more information about the sales of IQ2000 (almost 5 million copies sold by 1991), plus the information that that vice-president was also inventing games, and info about the game itself. I had not finished adding references - this one [11] is also about a particular new game, but has more info about the company, describing it as "a major Canadian toy manufacturer and distributor", says it introduces three new Canadian games each year, is always looking for new Canadian-invented adult parlor games, and that the sales of the new game were between 25,000-50,000 a year. I think you are setting the bar for "significant" too high. As for your suggestion about having an article about the company's products - the current article does include a list of the company's products. Why would we have a list like that without any information about the company, when that information is available? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ludington House (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)

Disambiguation page for articles that are all red linked. Caorongjin (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A dab page is supposed to disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not red-links without documented notability. The links do not even exist in draft form and do not appear likely ever to become valid Wikipedia articles. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment. One red link is listed on NRHP. The name is also an alias for another NRHP red link. The best solution is a hat note if and when Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas) is created. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: have cleaned up the dab page. All four houses get a mention in the encyclopedia, and are valid dab page entries. PamD 09:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All entries meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dab pages are not search indices. All-redlink dab pages are very rare and usually speedily deleted. Of the 4 entries, one is not called Ludington House, one is simply part of an inset illustration without explanation on an 1872 map, one is an ad for a current B&B, and only one is independently notable. The passing mentions are not substantial and the page gets in the way of the search engine. Station1 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As stated, these are all red links. This would be of no use to someone using Wikipedia. Beasting123 (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I would say that the nominator and "Keep" voters are not familiar with disambiguation page guidelines, if they were voting with respect to the current disambiguation page (which has been cleaned up by User:PamD and perhaps others). Please see MOS:DABRL which, if I recall correctly, provides the clarification that a redlink item can be a valid disambiguation page entry, provided that a supporting bluelink is included which shows usage of the redlink in context. In this dab page there are 100 percent valid items such as Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas) (currently a redlink) a historic residence listed on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Douglas County, Kansas, United States. --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note: in order to "win" this AFD, I could easily create a stub article for Ludington House (Lawrence, Kansas), which we know is a valid Wikipedia topic because the place is NRHP-listed and will sooner or later have an article created. And there are other places referred to, at least sometimes, as "Ludington House". Then you all agree the disambiguation page would be okay, right? So then obviously it would be silly to delete the disambiguation page now, only to require recreating it later, right? Delete voters, please consider striking your delete votes, or please do comment further and/or ask questions towards clearing up misunderstandings here. If you really doubt my "expertise" about this, feel free to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation or anywhere else to round up other disambiguation-focused experts. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PamD above. MB 10:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and convert to SIA. The easiest thing to do with pages like this which are actually useful but break disambiguation page guidelines is to convert them to an SIA (a list of houses called "Ludington House"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MOS:DABMENTION etc., etc. If deleted, it could be created as a redirect to any one of the blue links in the disambiguation page, which is exactly why it's a disambiguation page, to solve the technical issue of not being able to redirect to more than one of them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are multiple ways to handle this unusual article, but the MOS/DABRL issue seems to have been addressed, leaving the issues of "getting in the way of the search engine" and "this should be an SIA". The latter one is not a deletion issue, and can be handled elsewhere. As for getting in the way of the search engine, maybe, but like other dab pages this one helps a casual reader get immediate context on the various possibilities for the term. Put another way, there's not a significant problem here that deletion will solve, so the rest can be handled away from AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Cs of 21st century learning (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 appears to be an unremarkable, cited almost entirely by first party sources, and a single press report, which does not establish notability( it just covers some goals of the USA administration at that time, not the subject of the article) and is additionally dead. Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had considered redirecting to 21st century skills, where this is briefly mentioned; most of the references are about that concept more than this mnemonic. That article has enough problems of its own that I didn't do that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to 21st century skills per above. This article does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE as the sources provided are neither plentiful nor independent of the subject and the topic is one paradigm among many; this also results in the focus shifting to P21 rather than the four Cs. Perhaps a mention in an article with a broader scope will suffice. ComplexRational (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. A self-referenced attempt. Text that lacks the attributes needed for incluson in a Wikipedia article should not be bundled off onto other articles. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Has won some minor awards. Cannot find any reviews. The few that do seem to exist actually refer to the 2018 film. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Cannot find sources for the claims made in the article. PriceDL (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator's reasons. A Google search only returned the IMDb page and a brief mention on Los Angeles CineFest, which is not enough for the film to merit its own article. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 01:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per inability to satisfy WP:NFILM. Longest review I could find was 8 lines, exclusive of reliability issues. Other AfD reviewers should make sure not to mix up with Ladoo. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mishika Chourasia (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:NACTOR. The film, that she is supposed to start her career with, is yet to be released. WP:TOOSOON case too. Hitro talk 06:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 07:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Rangeela Raja; fails NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as above - just not enough to meet notability. Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability must not get deleted. Shringhringshring (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shringhringshring is the creator of and major conttibutor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help us understand how she meets WP:NACTOR, using the criteria from that page and give specific examples? Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACTOR. Not much comes up, as of yet. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing failing WP:NACTOR. Criteria is multiple major roles in notable films. I find one minor role in a notable film. Ifnord (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Lewis-Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a politician "notable" only as a smalltown municipal councillor and non-winning candidate for election to the state legislature. As always, neither of these is an WP:NPOL pass -- a person has to win election to the state house, not just run and lose, to clinch notability from the state legislature election, and city councillors are presumed notable only in a small elite tier of major metropolitan global cities on the order of New York City or Chicago. But this article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make her a special case over and above most other city councillors or most other non-winning candidates for office -- it's referenced to a mix of primary sources and blogs that do absolutely nothing whatsoever to establish notability, routine local coverage in the local community pennysaver of a volume and depth that every city councillor everywhere could always show, and glancing namechecks of her existence in extralocal coverage that isn't about her. As always, this is not how you make a smalltown city councillor notable enough to claim "special case" status among a not otherwise notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment created by apparent SPA valereee (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Much of the sourcing is either primary or from the Henry Harold, a local community paper. The references in most cases do not provide a URL, but following up on some of them, the references are very thin indeed. For example, reference #9 from Talking Points Memo is a shining example of a passing mention (see for yourself). References #11 to #15 are used to source a single sentence which has nothing to do with Lewis-Ward. Seventeen references for a short bio article may seem like a goodly quantity, but an examination of the quality makes it clear that they do nothing much to support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've gone through and checked a couple sources (the ones that are now linked) and they're both bare mentions in short pieces in community newspapers. Frankly I find it absolutely irritating that the page creator didn't link to sources. It seems intentionally misleading. Most of these aren't sources that are difficult to find online. It feels like actively deciding AGAINST linking to make checking more difficult, which I find reprehensible. If Regina Ward-Lewis were truly notable, surely the author would have WANTED to make it easy to check sources. I may try to check a couple of the clearly reliable sources referenced just to be on the safe side, but I'm feeling like between the SPA and the not linking to sources, this is a bad faith situation. valereee (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC) ETA: okay, I checked (and linked to) the Atlanta Journal-Constitution story and one of the NYT stories about the Canarsie protests. She of course isn't even mentioned in the NYT article, it's just a story about the protests, and the mention in the AJC is a just a bare announcement that there would be a runoff between these two women.[reply]
• Delete Unelected candidates for state house are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable based on her failing WP:NPOL and the lack of GNG passing sources to establish notability. JC7V (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the page does not meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Navigation Award Scheme (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, tagged as unreferenced since 2009 without ever seeing a titch of improvement, about an award. As always, awards are not automatically presumed notable just because their self-published websites verify that they exist; they need to show enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I spent quite a while searching for coverage in independent reliable sources, but failed to find anything significant enough to meet WP:GNG. I thought for a while that the Royal Institute of Navigation might provide a suitable target for a redirect, but it turns out that it was merely launched at their premises and is an independent charity. And much of the current content still appears to be copy-pasted from its website. --Qwfp (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Alowed to stay afloat for far too long. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painfully Midwestern Records (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 significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 05:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. FOARP (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sources in article are mostly not about the subject, not independent, or not significant coverage. Found a couple of mentions in "Wide musical net captures talent in Columbia's waters", Nguyen, Mary T., Columbia Daily Tribune, 12 Oct 2006, but the article is mostly about the record and it contains information like the names of the five stores in Columbia, MO where you can buy it. Maybe there's a case for one of the albums, barely, but the company itself fails WP:NCORP. Bakazaka (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aarhus Frogs (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 notability per WP:NSPORT. SL93 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources in the article, and no sources that I can find to even get an idea what level of notability this organization may have. If any are presented, I will certainly revisit my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Paul. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable JC7V (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even notable enough to have more than 145 likes on Facebook Cliftonsanez (talk) 0:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF. The references provided are mere mentions of Ortiz. I looked at the refs used in the article about her in the Spanish Wikipedia and those didn't help. A Google scholar search and a general Google search didn't unearth anything new. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My search didn't find the coverage necessary to show she meets WP:GNG and my search in Google Scholar showed an h index of 4, which is not enough to meet WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Taxonomy is a low-citation subject, but we can't base an article merely on her having accomplished the entry-level task of a taxonomist (finding and naming a species) and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 4 participants unanimous !voting "delete" is quite enough, no need to drag this out. Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article is only two sentences long, and of the only two external links given, one is to the magazine's own website. A Google search for "Coastline (magazine)" does not throw up anything about this magazine until one gets to Wikipedia's own article. Vorbee (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This may have billed itself as an academic journal but it appears to have ended up as nothing more than a defunct blog. And beyond the brief announcement of its existence on a different blog and an entry in one scholarly society's list of related publications, there is little to be found in the way of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move Chel to this name leaving a redirect. This effectively deletes this page. However, the entire content of this page has been copied and pasted from Chel, that is the earlier version, so no history merge is required. I am not adding the alternative name to the lead as I can't find a reliable source but this can be done, later, as a normal editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chelrood (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)

Duplicate article Chel. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete clearly duplicates Chel. Lorstaking (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, then rename Chel to Chelrood. Clear duplicate. The other one is better sourced and earlier - but on the wrong name. Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete then rename" sounds like acknowledgement that the name is valid, and then that the correct decision here should be "redirect" with possibly Move to follow. User:Icewhiz does not provide any argument why "delete" would be appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a duplication of Chel. There is nothing worth merging from this stub into the other stub (which is better developed) - with a single exception - that this stub (Chelrood) has the correct title. Had there been mergable content - I would be advocating a merge.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. If it is a duplicate article, then no AFD is necessary. Simply redirect from one valid alternative name to the other name, and note both valid names in the lede of the article in bold. If you think there could be disagreement about such a redirect/merger, then set up a wp:RM merger request at the Talk page of the intended target, but here I doubt that it is controversial. Since it is known by two names, as far as I can tell, then "Delete" is invalid as an outcome here. A redirect is needed. --Doncram (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rename per Icewhiz. SportingFlyer talk 07:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how "delete and rename" could be sensible. I just inserted comment below Icewhiz's !vote. I see no justification provided by Icewhiz or User:SportingFlyer why deletion is necessary. Why not simply redirect (and also possibly move)? --Doncram (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Highly promotional. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 02:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. There's one link to a reliable source, Fortune (here), but it takes us to some text about something else and not the subject. Created by kamikazes. -The Gnome (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom for failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Ward Guns (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 might have scraped through under our old WP:NCORP notability guidelines, but it doesn't meet the revised requirements. I can see no in-depth coverage of the shop in the sources in the article, nor do I find any by searching. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NCORP. Ifnord (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant coverage found - fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest International Documentary Festival (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, perhaps WP:DIVERSE and WP:DEPTH. Little local coverage except for tourist, event sites. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 22:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a notable film festival in the country. These are some of the biggest online media outlets reporting about the next BIDF: 1, 2, 3, 4 --Adam Harangozó (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi Adam Harangozó Add the references to the article, so folk can take a look please. scope_creep^Talk 12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Somehow I thought they are in there but it was only in the Hungarian article. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Harangozó is the creator of and major contributor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I checked the independent sources and one was an interview; the others were pretty brief and didn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV. Catrìona (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with remorse! This is by all means a worthy festival but the sourcing is inadequate for a Wikipedia article. The project's encyclopaedic purpose trumps personal preferences. -The Gnome (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. As The Gnome points out, it's not a comment on the festival itself, merely that it doesn't have the notability that a global encyclopedia requires. Ifnord (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for poor sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. FWIW, the Hungarian Wikipedia article is also sparse, and is a recent creation as well. [[12]]. WP:TOOSOON also? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I don't believe this passes any specific guidelines, but regardless, the lack of references alone makes the article not warranted. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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