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) 13:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

María Díaz Cortés (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)

Time for another AfD. No sources, unremarkable longevity claim, and we're left with WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete living to 117 is extremely unlikely, and given her daughter is 44 years younger than her mother's claimed age, this looks like a case of deception. It would be a real miracle to have a child at 44, and given she lived without even basic home amenities I doubt she had a fertility doctor's help. Therefore this page is promoting an unverified highly suspicious claim. The previous AfD was poorly presemted and poorly attended with no one looking at the reasonableness of the claim. Legacypac (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Legacypac. This poorly sourced article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable, and this WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. I also agree that editors should use discretion and weigh the reasonableness of such a claim when faced with obvious age deception. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment / Delete I love the irrationality of the arguments for deleting arguments about supercentenarians. The nom says it's an "unremarkable longevity claim", while one voter says "living to 117 is extremely unlikely"! If she really was 117 years and 11 days old when she died, she would not have been the oldest person ever, as two verified supercentenarians have lived for longer. 117 is both possible, and remarkable. As for having a child at 44 being "a real miracle", no, it is quite possible, as per the Wikipedia article on Maternal age, "Having children later was not exceptional in the past, when families were larger and women often continued bearing children until the end of their reproductive age." But if it was a real miracle, why wouldn't that be notable? Looking at the actual guidelines for notability, I do not find much coverage - one report of her 116th birthday, reports of her death, and one paragraph in one book. So it looks to me as though she does not meet WP:GNG, whether or not her claimed age was true. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, I see what you mean. What I meant, anyway, is that there are a lot of claims to reach this age; the remarkable ones are the ones with impeccable sourcing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are not two people who outlived this claimed record now thatthe gold standard for verified claims has been researched better. [1] Legacypac (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE. There is nothing to say about her other than she was born, claimed age X and then died. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No GNG satisfied. Wiki is not a Guinness Book of Records.--1l2l3k (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insignificant coverage despite extraordinary claims made by the subject. -- MapSGV (talk) 06:01, 11 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) 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Josephs (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: NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, his resume doesn't qualify him for meeting WP: NHOCKEY, and there's no evidence that he might meet WP:GNG. PKT(alk) 14:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable hockey player. No evidence he meets the GNG, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Created by an editor with a history of dubious hockey-related article creations. – AaronWikia (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He'll qualify for an article if and when he actually gets called up to the roster of the Pittsburgh Penguins themselves and gets onto the ice in at least one actual Pittsburgh Penguins game, but simply getting drafted by the Pittsburgh Penguins and then playing only in the farm teams is not an automatic WP:NHOCKEY pass as things stand today. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Fails the GNG and he's not close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY with a total of 23 AHL games over 3 seasons.Sandals1 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--1l2l3k (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:ANYBIO criteria Wolfson5 (talk) 06:03, 11 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Jian (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 would have WP:BLPPRODed it except that there's a link to the person's profile. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 23:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She meetsWP:NOLYMPICS "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896)". She has participated at two summer Olympics, and won silver at one of them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep - are you kidding? She's an Olympic silver medalist. -Zanhe (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Easily meets WP:NOLYMPICS as an Olympic silver medalist. Total failure of WP:BEFORE on the part of the nominator. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - In its present state, the statements that she played in the Olympics are unverified. Therefore:
• Improve Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate from Tang Dynasty official. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: The claim was verified in the sole source that article had. I've just added another, more detailed one. -Zanhe (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I forgot about WP:NOLYMPICS, I'll withdraw. Anyone can feel free to close this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:36, 6 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) 13:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin B. Morrison (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)

Inadequately referenced WP:BLP of a person notable only for holding political office at the county level. This is not a level of office that automatically confers guaranteed inclusion rights on every officeholder under WP:NPOL, the way serving in Congress or a state legislature would -- but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG, as two of its four footnotes are primary sources that do not support notability at all, while the other two are simply the routine local election coverage that any newly elected county councillor anywhere could always show in their local media. To make somebody notable at the county level of political office, it's not enough to just verify that he exists -- it requires a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as a special case who's significantly more notable than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a misguided suggestion for several reasons. Most other present and former members of the 17 member Cook County Board of Commissioners, including the predecessor to this commissioner, have their own articles; not only is it the governing body for the second largest county in the United States, the districts that these members represent are larger in population than state legislative districts in Illinois. Additionally, this individual is notable for several reasons, including being the first-ever openly LGBT member of this governing body and its youngest. He has received significantly more press than other members of the body who have their own pages, which is a feat in the Chicago media market that often does not cover county commissioner races or individual commissioners. This article should be kept. Jmkp1955 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, his predecessor has an article for being the state-level chair of an entire political party, not for being a county commissioner per se — so the fact that he has an article does not reify into an inclusion freebie for everybody else on the county council, because the county council isn't his main notability claim.

Secondly, neither being the first LGBT person to hold an otherwise non-notable office nor being the youngest person to hold an otherwise non-notable office are notability freebies either. If the office isn't a clean NPOL pass in and of itself, such as a seat in the state legislature or Congress, then his age and his membership in an underrepresented minority group aren't things that automatically make him special.

Thirdly, this article isn't showing evidence that he's "received significantly more press than other members of this body" — it's citing just two pieces of media coverage, which is not an unusual or unexpected volume. It isn't even a fraction of the sourcing that John Fritchey is citing, for example.

Fourthly, just like Tim Schneider, many of the people in Category:Members of the Cook County Board of Commissioners have articles for other reasons besides the county council per se, such as going on to serve in the state legislature and/or in Congress. On a random spot check of five other articles just now, the only other one I could find that was positing Cook County council as the subject's only notability claim was created just a couple of days before this was, and will also be listed for deletion as soon as I'm done typing this comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — if there are other articles that are equivalent to this, in that the county council is the main notability claim and the sourcing isn't showing strong evidence that they're special, then that doesn't mean this has to be kept, it means those other articles have to be deleted. We can only delete stuff if and when we catch it, so the existence of any article is never prima facie grounds for the creation of any other: each article has to directly satisfy our inclusion criteria on its own, and comparing it to any other article gets you nowhere fast. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bearcat- I believe Jmkp1955 has now been able to address your concerns regarding the entry on Kevin B. Morrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the subsequent changes to the article, including the national coverage he received during his 2018 campaign. --Orestek (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete County commissioners are rarely notable, and he is no exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, doesn't pass WP:NPOL and sourcing is all about his run for local office. SportingFlyer talk 04:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Another among a bunch of articles created on Cook County commissioners. That's not a position which passes WP:NPOL. All of the coverage is the usual local reporting on elections and his age and/or sexuality don't impact his notability. The fact that other commissioners may have articles does not mean all county commissioners deserve them, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Sandals1 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:32, 11 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) 14:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilson (pollster) (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)

Possible UPE article about a pollster - all the references are brief mentions of him in connection with Ted Cruz's campaign and a (admittedly quick) WP:BEFORE search does not show up any more. Does not appear to meet any specific notability guideline, nor WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO. I also don’t believe that the article is really salvageable, at this point. There were clearly COI issues that slipped through the cracks with this page years ago. For full disclosure, I discovered it while RC patrolling and opened the COIN thread regarding the suspected undisclosed paid editor, after they continued editing the page without responding to my warnings. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:35, 5 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue, use MfD or just let the draft expire and get deleted under G13. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 08:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maci raines (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Maci raines|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 relevant to the Encyclopedia A 10 fireplane ^{Imform me} 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW CLOSE – No AFD action needed. This was an empty draft mistakenly sent to AfD. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:14, 5 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) 14:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie Guimond-Bélanger (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 political activist, with no strong notability claim per WP:NPOL and no strong reliable source coverage about her. The only real notability claims here are that she (a) was an unsuccessful election candidate, and (b) filled in for a few weeks in 2011 as her party's de facto spokesperson while the actual party leader was on a temporary leave of absence -- neither of which is a strong claim to permanent notability at all. And for sourcing, we have her primary source candidate profile on her political party's website, an article in the university alumni newsletter of her own alma mater, a raw table of the results in her unsuccessful election, and two glancing namechecks of her existence in news articles about other things -- which is nowhere near solid enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG in lieu of NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - have now included strong sources from La Presse, Huffington Post Quebec, Le Devoir, Toronto Star, and shifted focus from "temp spokesperson", to leader of National Women's Commission. Also included notable work as an academic/social worker/activist. Bogger (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - does not seem to be notable. The only "claim to fame" seems to be "stand-in" for spokesperson. This article [[2]] dated monday 28.03.2011 seems to refer to a meeting on saturday 26.03.2011 where she was elected as spokesperson in the absence of Françoise David til she was back on August 1rst 2011. This abcense is not mentioned in the article about David or in the article about Québec solidaire. Being elected spokesperson seems to be the only element of the article that speaks for a keep. The rest of the article does not seem to show notability. regards ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 16:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-homeless-man-100k-fines-1.3473707 and https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/montreal-homeless-facing-up-to-110-000-in-fines-1.2802694 seems to be pretty decent coverage. WP:ONEEVENT is a consideration, but there's probably enough else to be significant. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't articles about her — they just include her giving soundbite to the media in articles whose core subject is something else besides her, so they aren't notability-making coverage of her. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: though I must commend Bogger's work in expanding the article, the only real coverage seems to be this source. Indeed I agree with Bearcat that the subject's commentary on news articles is not coverage of her, but of the issues she is discussing. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article isn't sourced well enough for her to pass WP:GNG. She's only significantly covered in two articles, one of which is the CBC article about homelessness and the other one is the Laval article whose independence I doubt, seems like a student profile? Everything else are just mentions or article quotes. SportingFlyer talk 05:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG and Bilorv. Depth of sourcing is absent. Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SportingFlyer and Yoninah. Falls short of GNG, but given that I feel that the article has potential, draftify? Meanwhile, does any believe that that one source can be attached to an existing article related to the subject? FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and WP:TOOSOON. --1l2l3k (talk) 04:33, 11 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. Personally, I find it unlikely that any in-depth coverage of this person will surface in the future and I sympathize strongly with the view voiced by AGK. However, the consensus view appears to be to keep this permastub. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Goiorani (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 WP:SIGCOV, one ref is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, the other does not link to who it says ^{[Username Needed]} 12:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I fixed the second link. And she played at a World and European Championship with the senior team. Kante4 (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She has certainly played at European level (does that give presumed notability? France placed 9th the year she played). However, I have not found where she is listed in a World Championship team? It doesn't help that the only team listed on the France women's national handball team page is for 2017. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref shows that she was in the squad and this link should sort it out, displaying her stats at the 2013 WC. Will add it to the article. Kante4 (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you - as she has played at world championship level, I believe that she is presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no such thing as "presumed notable". ^{[Username Needed]} 12:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Playing at the highest level of their sport (WC/EC) makes her notable. "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Kante4 (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played at a World Championship, that makes her notable per above. I don't know why this had to be relisted three times. Smartyllama (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. From what I see, no secondary sources have provided coverage of the subject's career. While we know from primary sources that the subject indeed participated in some significant competitions, they have not played internationally and are not likely to have received significant coverage (WP:SPORTSPERSON). Indeed we know the subject has received no such coverage. I cannot see how this subject currently warrants inclusion of a biography. AGK ■ 22:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So playing at a World Championship isn't playing internationally? Smartyllama (talk) 13:28, 11 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 merge to List of supercentenarians by continent#Oldest European people ever. The consensus seems to be to merge this to the [(List of Finnish supercentenarians]]. However, as that list has been merged into List_of_supercentenarians_by_continent#Oldest European people ever, I have selected that page as merge target. Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aarne Arvonen (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 independent notability besides this person's reaching an advanced age. His entries on the List of the verified oldest men and List of Finnish supercentenarians are sufficient. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that being old is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like he was the last known veteran of a war and his astronomy club membership information. His name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the two lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant, ongoing coverage from 1998 (when he was interviewed on TV on the 80th anniversary of the end of WWI) to his death over 10 years later. We are not judging the quality of the article, or the number of references included in it. He meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and WP:SUSTAINED. Saying there is no policy that being old is notable is not a reason to delete an article about someone who meets WP:GNG. There is no policy that being old excludes one from being notable, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Finnish supercentenarians. There looks to be enough for a minibio, as his longevity in relation to the Finnish civil war garnered a little coverage, but not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to redirecting and writing a mini-bio on the list. — JFG ^talk 14:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per RebeccaGreen – meets the GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. /Julle (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  How is 3 paragraphs enough for a standalone article? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In an encyclopedia? Three paragraphs is plenty long – longer than most articles in the typical printed modern encyclopedia that most of our readers still grew up with. Many articles should be 1–3 paragraphs long, in my opinion. It's what people are looking for when they just want to quickly look something up. Hiding everything in long articles is just doing the readers a disservice. Furthermore, this article is longer than the length at which our guidelines recommends starting thinking about combining it with other articles for length reasons. /Julle (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of anything else at the list of Finnish supercenetnatrians, it seems to me that's a perfect place to put this. Not much, but enough for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on both points, I'm afraid. You think this article is too short; I believe this is a very good length for a Wikipedia article and that we should have more articles of roughly this length – perfect overview for an encyclopedia, and about the length (and longer!) than many articles in the classic encyclopedias of the 20th century. Not just because they were printed on paper, but also because it's a good length to give the kind of quick presentation many readers want. You think this would work well in the list; I believe that the list works better as it is and that adding a reasonably long biography in a list article where no one else has anything like it would skew the focus and make it unbalanced. /Julle (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the finnish page. Getting old is not enough for a stand alone article. Printed encyclopedias do not and would not have wasted a paragraph on this person, so that is a red herring. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge/redirect. Another obvious NOPAGE. The only facts actually about him, veteran of the Finnish Civil War of 1918 having served for the Red Guard. After the Civil War he spent a year at the Tammisaari prison camp can be presented in a list. EEng 05:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not in any way independamtly notable and getting old is not that notable. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 7 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deeside Caledonia Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 20 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G10. Action performed by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warhats (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 was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, and the only mentions were on various message boards. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note I've speedy deleted it under G10 criteria as the article made extremely contentious unsourced claims about a specific group and two related individuals.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 4 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Krenshi (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)

BLP with no inline citations, just an external link. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NATHLETE due to there being no cited claim of notability within the article. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep it seems he passes WP:NFOOTY for playing in a fully professional league based on soccerway/possibly a match report in Arabic I stumbled upon (but can't verify) but we need a citation from somewhere. An Arabic search seemed more promising, but I don't understand the language well enough to add a citation. Upgrade to a full keep as soon as he's not an unreferenced BLP. SportingFlyer talk 23:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY due to a number of appearances in the FPL-listed Saudi Professional League. R96Skinner (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Guy has played over 40 Saudi Pro League matches. Passes WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY; as Snowman said, needs improving, not deleting. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:17, 9 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) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abneet Bharti (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)

Nominating this page again for deletion. Obviously doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY and still doesn't actually pass WP:GNG.

Going by the last time this article was nominated for deletion, it seems that User:Struway2 had some comments in regards to some of the sources listed, such as some of them linking back to a questionable source such as sportskeeda and Bharti's agent being close to the sources.

User:Aksportpro mentions that he is a very notable athlete in his home country and the country he was playing in at the time (Portugal). I doubt at all he was known in Portugal and searching for sources, it proves that he wasn't reported on much and for India, he is nowhere near the mainstream at all, especially when it comes to football. He gets a couple of articles but that isn't enough to justify notability on wikipedia. Football wise, he has yet to even be called-up to any of the India teams (youth or senior) and there is nothing about him coming to play in either the I-League or Indian Super League, our professional leagues.

Also, someone asked about football journalism in India. It isn't the best and there is a lot of agent work done in India to get headlines for their players. A few articles is nice but it shouldn't justify a page for a player. Instead, those sources should be used for the article once the player is notable. Many young Indian players get these types of articles and we can't make one for every young player that gets a full-length article. Also, reading this wikipedia article again, a lot of it sounds like a fluff piece. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per the last nomination - he's clearly been talked about in the press and feature articles have been written on him which seem to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 23:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both features that are not sporskeeda are from 2014 when he was moving to Real Valladoloid. Articles are always made for Indian footballers whenever a young one goes abroad. It isn't anything groundbreaking and nothing really has been done since besides maybe a few articles here and there. Even in the features, he hasn't done anything extraordinary. He went to a Spanish youth side for a little bit before bouncing around some random European clubs but none are fully-pro. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if majority of the articles are done through his agent which wouldn't be a surprise in India. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm looking particularly at the IBT Times and Khelnow articles, and a before search shows other feature articles have been written about him in several different languages that aren't related to the sportskeeda articles. Upgrading it to Keep now I've actually done a before search. SportingFlyer talk 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly can not believe that. Khelnow isn't even a reliable source. It is a blog website and the writers are not actual journalists. Many of them come from sportskeeda. The IBT Times article is from 2014 and is just a feature about his life. How is one feature from 2014 counting for notability? Also have you looked into the content of these foreign articles? How many of them actually provide enough information to show that this guy is an actual notable footballer and not just something more than an amateur footballer. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: BTW, I am trying to find more about the calciomercado nomination. The source links to an article written by an Indian writer. I know this is wikipedia and we shouldn't be saying anything outlandish but honestly wouldn't surprise me if Bharti was included just because he was an Indian playing abroad and/or some agent work. There isn't even a description of why Bharti is included in the best U21 list, just his name. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per me in the last AfD. Fails WP:GNG by not being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources witha reputaton for editorial integrity independent both of each other and of the subject.

  It's easy for a player's representative to get stuff into online media: that particular representative's website mentions media exposure on their about page. They also mention sportskeeda, a self-publishing site, as one of the websites they use: the Yahoo Sports piece cited in the article is taken from and credited to sportskeeda. The firstpost.com piece is a press release, and as such explicitly not independent of the subject. The IB Times piece is highly derivative of it, and although that site may be reliable now, in 2014 it was largely a purveyor of high-volume clickbait.

  The mainstream media snippets e.g. this mentioned at the last AfD show him signing for Sintrense, and the article's infobox includes stats for that club. Soccerway has Sintrense data since 2013/14: in that time, no-one called Bharti, and no Indian player, has played for that club's first team. Nor can I find anything in the Portuguese media about his Sintrense career: one might have thought an Indian player enough of a novelty to have got a mention. Again, he may have been at Valladolid in some capacity, but his name doesn't appear on their youth team squad lists, which were archived regularly on the Wayback Machine. Start here and go backwards and forwards in date and up and down the age groups: he's not there.

  So, if all we've got are puff pieces and exaggerations on self-publishing sites and other online media readily accessible to an assiduous intermediary, I don't see that as a GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 19:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article was nominated for deletion earlier but the community decided that it would stay. The same user is always requesting to delete the page. The athlete is notable also in other countries. For example, most recently there was a contract offer from Club America in Mexico and it was widely written about in Mexican media also. ^{[1] [2] [3]}. They are all well known source. Some more examples: Also lastly, the comment made about how Indian media works based on agent contact, etc. How can you justify this answer with 100% facts? After doing research I managed to find an official document of Sintrense which you can have a look by clicking the document reference letter pdf at the bottom of this scouting page. ^[4] I don't think you could find more official and verifiable document than this. Regarding the stats, in Portugal only the Campeonanto Portugal is covered by Soccerway, Sintrense first team also plays in a regional Lisbon area League/Cup where Abneet played. The 13 games were taken from ^[5] Zerozero is official statistics for all leagues in Portugal,soccerway even uses them to update their stats for the third division in Portugal. The article can be modified, changed can be made and that's not a problem, this article has been nominated the second time by the exact same person. (first time it was agreed that it's good enough to be on wikipedia). I just hope this wikipedia community understands and this article is not deleted just because of personal problems of some individual who has been requesting deletion over and over again. Like I said, required changed can be made.

Aksportpro (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Aksportpro[reply]

Your two Mexican sources don't really count for anything other than routine transfer stuff. Don't know how that would contribute for GNG. Not sure about the official document. No one is denying him being with the Portuguese side, just that he played. The ZeroZero site says he was born in Poland. Also, the article wasn't kept last time because it was deemed notable enough. It was closed due to no common consensus. Literally, that is what the closing admin said. By the way, why do you only do stuff on wikipedia when it comes to Abneet Bharti? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the appearances for Sintrense are effectively worthless when discussing this player – the club plays in the Portuguese third tier, which isn't a WP:FPL, and he thus fails WP:NFOOTY. As to WP:GNG, the comment by Struway2 is what sways my vote to be a delete – of the references that aren't WP:ROUTINE, the quality of the sites and pieces isn't enough to meet GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for soccer players and the coverage is focused on him changing teams. These transactions are typical of every pro soccer player so I'd say the coverage is not enough to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Player is well recognized and well known in multiple media sources in multiple languages. Player is not your average youth footballer, he is notable with good media following him and not all media can be deemed like agent work, etc.94.75.72.146 (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)elcapitao[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Four of Diamonds. Any material that might be merged to the redirect target is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four of Diamonds (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. 8th place finish on a reality show is hardly notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (and protect if necessary), the redirect is valid, as is the list entry, but the band have not charted in any single or album chart, therefore they fail WP:MUSICBIO. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 18:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, redirection should be to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Four of Diamonds — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors 19:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Four of Diamonds charted on iTunes UK with their single Name On It. In theory, if Ryan Lawrie can stay an active article due to charting on iTunes, so can Four of Diamonds. — User:Joesimnett —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BADCHARTS The iTunes Store is not a chart. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the programme on which they appeared. They currently have no notability outside of their appearance on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 13)#Four of Diamonds is more fitting if the notability must be questioned..

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) 14:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robin des Champs (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, even if some of its progeny are. Nothing in article suggests meeting WP:NHORSERACING. Article had no references at all until after animal died. Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; notability is not inherited from the horse's progeny, and it doesn't appear to meet notability criteria on its own merits. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Raiju - this fails WP:GNG due to no true claim of notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Article seems to fail WP:NHORSERACING and WP:GNG in general. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• """Keep""" Why delete it? User:Lucifero4

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) 14:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ampika Pickston (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, GNG, insufficient references. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; notability not demonstrated and her appearance The Real Housewives of Cheshire is unlikely to generate the coverage to demonstrate notability. Neutral on a redirect to The Real Housewives of Cheshire. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:50, 6 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 merge to Giant oarfish. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake fish (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)

Seems to be an unnecessary page considering that 2/3 of the linked articles are redlinks. Kb03 (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A variety of fish behave in a variety of ways when an earthquake happens or is imminent. And there are myths that the earthquakes are caused by the movement of a giant fish. All these aspects can reasonably be covered under this title and so the page needs expansion and improvement per WP:IMPERFECT. See Earthquakes and Animals: From Folk Legends to Science for an example of the topic's potential. Andrew D. (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the following paper says "Swarms of earthworms appeared and deep sea fish, Trachipterus ishikawae, called messenger of dragon palace and earthquake fish by Taiwanese people", which at least confirms its existence as a name for Trachipterus ishikawae, but that's a redlink. Ikeya, M., Yamanaka, C., Mattsuda, T., Sasaoka, H., Ochiai, H., Huang, Q., ..., & Nakagawa, T. (2000). Electromagnetic pulses generated by compression of granitic rocks and animal behavior. Episodes, 23. —Kodiologist (t) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article, though in need of much improvement, could certainly be expanded to discuss the connection between fish and earthquakes in a more generalized sense. It is not a DAB page and therefore the redlinks are not a concern. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Giant oarfish. Agree with the OP. I'm not seeing any strong evidence one way or the other on the issue of whether the other two will have articles at some point, so I see no reason to delete content that could eventually be spun out into its own article(s). But if the content is merged, the WP:CIRCULAR citations to Chinese Wikipedia should be removed. (As an aside, while I don't think it's related, it is suspicious that a shitty article on a Taiwanese topic would show up right after WAM. I was not that active on WAM this year, but I do think the event needs to get its act together; they were reluctant, earlier, to implement stricter content rules as it might discourage content creation, but the number of entries seems to have gone down every year regardless, without a forced improvement in article quality.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Giant oarfish if that's a match.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge information is interesting, but this is not disambiguation material, as the species don't seem to have the common name mentioned, just share an association with earthquakes. But i think it could be added to the earthquake article, of if there is an article on earthquake mythology, as well as the species articles. All accepted species are inherently notable, so redlinks shouldn't be an issue here. --Nessie (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Giant oarfish as most immediately applicable target. #2 (Regalecus russelii) just has a conceptual association, #3 does not even have a source, and both are redlinks - that's very meagre grounds for a disambiguation. Mention of R. russelii can be made there if the earthquake association is explained in the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 6 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global One Belt One Road Association (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)

Created by a likely undeclared paid editor, this organisation appears to fail WP:NCORP as I am unable to find anything in English about it. The article is promotional and virtually unreferenced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation. Not sure if intended subject is the same entity. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I still can't figure out whether it's the same entity as the other (since-deleted) article's subject, but nothing indicates that it meets the notability guidelines. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article states that the org is a "Bangkok-based Non-Governmental organization formally approved by the Thailand government authority" and yet that approval process appears to have been quite informal, in that no government portals were offered as references to describe this approval / when it occurred / which ministry approved it.  Spintendo  03:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just for information, I have salted the following deleted titles as repeatedly recreated variations on the same subject: GBOA Foundation, GOBA Foundation, GOBA Foundations, and Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation. That last was deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global One Belt One Road Association Foundation. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 9 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) 14:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Majha Agadbam (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 thought about speedying as spam, but in any case there's no indication how this meets WP:Notability (films) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - can anyone find any stats on how it fared after release? Spiderone 19:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lack of evidence of passing WP:NFILM Spiderone 08:36, 8 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 List of Underdog characters#Simon Bar Sinister. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bar Sinister (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)

"Biography" of a fictional character, written almost entirely in-universe with no reliably sourced evidence of real-world context for standalone notability. The only references being cited here at all are linguistic sources for the etymology and meaning of "bar sinister" as a standard English phrase, not sources about the character as a character. List of Underdog characters already exists, and nothing here demonstrates or sources a reason why Simon Bar Sinister would warrant getting spun off as a separate article topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. None of the references actually cover Simon Bar Sinister; thus the general notability guidelines are not met. Inexplicably, the first AfD 10 years ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Bar Sinister resulted in a keep; however, I am not convinced any of the sources they propose are good enough, and clearly, they did not end up in the article. This topic is sufficiently covered in List of Underdog characters; so I would not mind a redirect to the appropriate section. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - WP:OR due to the concerns of BenKuykendall. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Underdog_(TV_series)#Characters. No need for deletion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List_of_Underdog_characters#Simon_Bar_Sinister would be a more appropriate redirection target. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Either one works for me! Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect no justifications given for a stand-alone article, but the redirect targets look fine. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:52, 6 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Eckersdorff (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)

References available give no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added a couple of sources but, unfamiliar with the intricacies of WP:NATHLETE and 1980s modern pentathlon, I'm not sure whether Eckersdorff's competitions qualify him for an article. – Teratix ₵ 02:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I couldn't find independent verification of him competing at the world championships or military world championships or information on how he did. The only source was the sfgate.com article. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 25 November 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 New Warriors#Counter Force Team. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Force (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable team, only sourced to primary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC Killer Moff (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Redirect to New Warriors#Counter Force Team, where it's covered in adequate detail. Based on the lead, this is where the information always should have been. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 28 November 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. Sandstein 18:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

South African Judicial Education Journal (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. No selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON". Article dePRODded by article creator without specific reason given, after adding two references (one a simple listing, the other a bio of the editor-in-chief. Journal only started this year and has published 1 (one) issue. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - Fails WP:NJOURNAL. No in-depth coverage found on independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not sure how this works, but creator of page (me) requesting that article be kept. Reason being that journal intent is of critical importance to research and debate of the judicial environment, and especially the constitutional court which is the highest court in South Africa. I do, however, understand the request to delete based on article being too new. This journal is, however, not a magazine but a journal filling a very unique role within the context. I should have kept the article in draft format originally. Apologies for dePRODing without reason - still learning how to respond to AFD process. I will respect the choice to delete should consensus be reached Wynlib40 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wynlib40, I have taken the liberty of refactoring your comment to be more in line with what is normally expected at an AFD.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - With the journal being so new, I think it's a little soon to have an article about it. However, given the context in which this journal was founded and is being published, I have no doubt it will quickly (probably w/in 12 months) satisfy WP:NJOURNAL. Until then, it should be moved to draft space to give Wynlib40 time to work on it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. No objection to a draft however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure that draftifying is appropriate here. Draft space is not intended as an indefinite repository of non-notable stuff. Given that this journal only has published a single issue yet, it might be quite a while until it actually meets either NJournals or GNG. If at some point in the future that point is reached, I (or any other admin) would be happy to restore the current article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 11 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) 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a purported supercentenarian which tells us almost nothing about her. Almost no sources, and those which do exist are of laughably routine events (as this article actually points out itself). WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This poorly sourced article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the being old is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her village's change in status, she was one of the first workers at a local sawmill, and didn't remember WWI (how surprising) but did WWII. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. One WP:ROUTINE obituary does not make someone notable. Even then, this is a WP:PERMASTUB that never will be expanded beyond "born, worked at a sawmill, got married and had two kids, lived to age X, died". No suitable redirect either. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 16:37, 10 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) 14:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Streels of Urtah (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)

Undue weight - fictitiuous location occuring sporadically (though admittedly rather signicant and fascinating) in two novels that are (sadly) not read very often Nø (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded in all respects and with thanks. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article Beklan Empire should probably have the same destiny as Streels of Urtah - but let's see a conclusion wrt Streels of Urtah before creating an AfD for Beklan Empire. The dab pages Streel and Quiso may also be affected.--Nø (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- unsourced and written in a primarily in-universe style, with more than a bit of original research. No content suitable for merger. Reyk _YO! 14:18, 23 November 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) 14:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

José Coelho de Souza (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)

Longevity claimant about whom almost nothing is known. Very little source material, and what exists tells us nothing beyond his profession and claimed age; the rest is filler original research and longevity trivia. WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:NOPAGE applies to this WP:PERMASTUB anyway as it won't expand beyond "born, worked, claimed age X, died". CommanderLinx (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a book of records, at least we do not have articles on each potential record holder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As noted by OP, a large amount of filler OR and not much in the way of significant coverage Wolfson5 (talk) 06:04, 11 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) 14:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarhat Rashidova (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)

Longevity claimant who got a brief spate of coverage, then died. There's essentially nothing about her life, and the little geography lesson on her home village demonstrates just how strained this is. WP:NOPAGE The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she had no children of her own but raised five other children, a geography lesson on her village, her diet, and a lesson on how people in her region often inflate their ages. This article is not needed on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non notable hoax Legacypac (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One of those who were known only for claiming themselves to be oldest or very old. These subjects lack significant coverage especially when we take their extraordinary claims into account. This is similar to other recently nominated articles. Rzvas (talk) 07:09, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters (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 an extensive list of characters that have no notability outside of the main series. Descriptions are written from the episode the characters appear in, and that's all. Notable voice actors could easily be inserted (if not already contained in) the main episode list or the main article. The references page falls to pieces without 1st-party (references to the series itself) citations. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 09:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If I may quote patsw from the previous AfD: "Keep The nomination is merely an incomplete assertion. The article is a pragmatic spin-off from another article where its independent coverage is manifest." The arguments from the first AfD appear to remain applicable here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The article's references are very poor. If we remove all first-party citations (those referencing the series itself), we are left with an obituary for one of the voice actors, a list of voice actors, and a dead link to an article mentioning one of the voice actors. This series features numerous one-off antagonists and characters whose mentions in this WP article are baffling considering notability standards. There is nothing worth keeping in this article that could not be integrated into the main article or episode list. I cannot agree with the idea that this article's "independent coverage is manifested" when nearly all of its references are to the series itself. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 10:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So you might have intended to make a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal. As a proposed deletion, though, it's an obvious (to me) Keep. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to Courage the Cowardly Dog; once all the single-episode characters with no secondary references are removed it won't be excessive there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge proposal should be handled separately, if this article is kept from this AfD, so that Courage the Cowardly Dog readers and watcher can be alerted by the merge proposal hatnotes and participate in the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "Courage the Cowardly Dog characters" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. Erickson, Hal (2005). Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949 Through 2003. Jefferson, North Carolina. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-7864-2255-5. Retrieved 2018-12-10.((cite book)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

     The book notes:

     For this, his only reward was a token pat on the head from Muriel and a snarled "Stupid dog!" from Eustace. Further conspiring to make Courage's life miserable were a variety of natural perils (flood, fires, tornadoes) and an evil red cat (and local hotel owner!) named Katz, who skulked around on his hind legs plotting all manner of crimes against humanity. Other recurring characters include snot-nosed science punk Di Lung, elderly Eustace's even more elderly mother "Ma," wacko fortune teller Shirley, incompetent medico Dr. Vindaloo, malevolent French duck Le Quack, and the community's one-and-only media celebrity, The Nowhere Newsman.

  2. Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (2007) [1979]. The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946–Present (9 ed.). New York: Ballantine Books. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-345-49773-4. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

     The book notes:

     This rather surrealistic cartoon centered on Courage, a plump pink dog who was afraid of almost everything. Abandoned as a pup, he now lived in a big ramshackle house in the middle of "Nowhere, Kansas" (portrayed as a vast empty plain), with his elderly owners, kindly white-haired Muriel and her cranky husband, Eustace. The place was regularly invaded by aliens and monsters bent on demolishing it and its inhabitants, and it was up to Courage, with chattering teeth and frightened look, to outwit them. He got some help from his talking Computer, but none from self-centered Eustace, who could only mutter, "Stupid dog!" Katz was an evil red cat who walked on his hind legs and caused much trouble; Di Lung, a punk kid with a scientific bent; and Ma, Euastace's irritable mother.

  3. Gitlin, Martin; Wos, Joe (2018). A Celebration of Animation: The 100 Greatest Cartoon Characters in Television History. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 147. ISBN 978-1-63076-278-0. Retrieved 2018-12-10.

     The book notes:

     Courage the Cowardly Dog
     
     ...

     Clueless owners: Eustace and Muriel Bagge

     Antagonists: Dr. Le Quack, Katz the Cat, The Alien Chicken, Di Lung

     The book also discusses individual episodes and the characters in them: Professor Mean in "Curtain of Cruelty" (2002), a "gigantic intergalactic human girl" named Tulip in "Tulip's Worm" (2002), the King of Flan in "King of Flan" (2002), Dr. Gerhart and the Bagge family in "House Calls" (2002), and Wremole and Giant Foot in "Ball of Revenge" (2002).
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists further says:

  Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.

  I oppose a merge to Courage the Cowardly Dog because it would result in the loss of a lot of the material (which can be sourced to primary sources and the book A Celebration of Animation: The 100 Greatest Cartoon Characters in Television History which discusses some of the individual episodes ) to comply with Wikipedia:Due weight.

  I agree with postdlf (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Courage the Cowardly Dog characters:

  A series' characters are obviously an integral part of that series, so they have to be described to some extent, even if only from primary sources. And whether such a character list is substantial enough to merit splitting off into a standalone list is an editorial decision.

  Cunard (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is significant coverage JesusMoreno89 (talk) 08:54, 11 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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as being notable under any WP:NMUSIC criterion. The only notability claim even being attempted here at all is the number of albums they've released -- but even NMUSIC makes passage of that criterion conditional on the notability of the record label the albums were released on, while neither of the record labels linked in the band's infobox is properly sourced as notable enough to get its artists over NMUSIC #5. And the referencing here is 7/8 to blog content that does not help to establish the notability of a band -- the only reference here that actually gets them off the starting blocks is PopMatters, but one review in one reliable source is not enough sourcing to get them to the finish line all by itself. The article basically just states that they exist, lists the albums, and then uses the (again, mostly unreliable) footnotes just to reference bomb genre labels rather than any notability-making accomplishments, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to be much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's now three albums through Soutern Lord and that still satisfies WP:MUSIC#5. Available sources include [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 is not passed by albums on just any record label, it's passed only if the albums are on a specific narrow tier of major labels and/or noteworthy independent labels, and Southern Lord is not reliably sourced as being in that narrow tier — its entire article is shitsourced to a single unreliable blog entry, not to coverage which establishes its notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and Metacritic shows that they have also been reviewed in Kerrang!. --Michig (talk) 18:27, 20 November 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) 15:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Haynes (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 high school principal, who has no really strong claim to being more notable than most other high school principals. Nothing stated here is a genuinely strong claim of nationalized significance at all, and none of the sourcing expands beyond the purely local human interest coverage that any long-serving principal of any high school could probably show in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (note I have a coi here - I know Gene well) He has a street named after him in a large city and was the first black hs coach in the state. Almost every hs principal will be a long serving educator when they near retirement. Few will have played as large of a community role which is evidenced in the references in this article as well as in a search on gnews, etc. Deepest apologies again for my coi. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have striked out !vote of the COI person (I do like it was an admitted one so), but also serves as a solid comment ground for now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I have no problem with a struck !vote. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To follow up, I've added a proposed awards section te the talk page: Talk:Gene Haynes#Awards. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete high school principals are almost never notable for such, and no other claim for Haynes notability exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All coverage is local and fairly standard for a long serving member of the community. Being an educator for 50 years is commendable, it just doesn't make one encyclopedic. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state level awards (Nebraskalander, black sports hall of fame, African-American Congressional History for instance) got statewide and regional newspaper coverage. Also, the Omaha World Herald is a regional paper, and Haynes' coverage in the paper has not only been in the local or sports sections but is also on the front page and in general news sections. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State awards are usually not considered enough to show notability. I am a bit confused. How is the Omaha World Herald not the local paper for someone who's entire career was spent teaching in Omaha? Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to point out that there is coverage of Haynes in sources based outside of Omaha[29] and that coverage of him in the Omaha World Herald is significant and not "human interest"-only. Of course Omaha is local to most of his career. Since a the discussion is in part focusing on the question of "local" I want to point out that WP:LOCALINT failed, I think, because it was too restrictive. But even if one tries to satisfy that essay, coverage of Haynes has, I think, "to a very high standard, have multiple reliable sources independent from the subject that provide in-depth, non-trivial coverage pertaining to the subject itself." Smmurphy^(Talk) 09:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A well-cited educator with a local and statewide reach who has been cited extensively in media sources beyond his local community. • Freechild | talk to me 02:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what sources are not local for a man from Omaha--Omaha Magazine, Omaha World Herald, or Omaha licensed KETV? Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a little surprised by this, but I am leaning towards keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG after my evaluation of the sources. I arrived to this conclusion based of the independent coverage (i.e. [30], WOWT: [31], [32], [33]), the Congressional History Award presented by Lee Terry [34][35], and the renaming of the street in his honor by the Omaha City Council [36][37]. The news coverage suggest Haynes is both a principal and a prominent figure in the Nebraska community. Note, from what I can tell, WP:BASIC doesn't discount reliable local sources. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I want to explain the reasoning behind my vote in more detail. There seems little doubt that Gene Haynes has been an asset to his community. However, every community has many people of whom that can be said, so that alone wouldn't seem to make him "encyclopedic". My comment on "local sources" was meant as a question/challenge to the editors who said the coverage was not local because he "got statewide and regional newspaper coverage" and "has been cited extensively in media sources beyond his local community." It may also be worth reminding people that WP:RS says "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting" and WP:N says "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". High school football coaches and principals are rarely considered WP notable, regardless of duration. Papaursa (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. I'm assuming the person who brought that up is referring to #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." This would be something like the Medal of Honor or a Nobel prize. He has a bunch of little known awards. The "street named after him" is only for part of a street that is near his high school. The sources for the little known "African-American Congressional History award" (hardly any search results) are "US Fed News Service" and a .gov site - not independent coverage. The local news coverage doesn't show that he is known throughout his state. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Don't believe WP:ANYBIO is met. None of the awards he's received are major. The street name change only affects the part of the street beside the school where he's principal. I found nothing to show his record as a coach or principal is notable. WP:BIO says a person should be "remarkable", "significant", or "unusual enough to deserve attention" and I don't see that he meets any of those. He appears to be well thought of and has been in his position for a long time, but neither of those meet any notability standards. Not seeing broad geographic coverage that would distinguish him from the "local heroes" that are honored in every town.Sandals1 (talk) 19:17, 10 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) 15:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brat Pack (Dutch band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article about a band, whose strongest notability claim is that their debut album placed in a user-generated Best Albums of the Year poll on an internet music discussion forum that isn't a reliable source. The article states that they toured, but the notability test for touring is not the statement itself but the degree to which it can be referenced to evidence of media coverage about the tour, such as actual concert reviews in reliable sources. And apart from the USERG discussion forum, the only other reference present here at all is their last.fm profile, which is not a notability-making source for a band as every band automatically gets one of those as soon as one last.fm user has scrobbled one listen. Nothing here is notable enough to exempt them from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, google and news returning nothing of note, hardly ever edited article, refs are last.fm saying nobody is listening and a 404. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't pass WP:MUSIC Skirts89 (talk) 15:37, 4 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. Apparent WP:V issues. Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pan African Air Services (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)

Unsourced article plus notability concerns. I found a single mention to an airline with this name in the Flight digital archive [38] that was from Tanzania.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No refs, no indication of notability or even that it exists at all. - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 5 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. Better sources than I found were available. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Solutions In Space (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)

By my WP:Before fails WP:NCORP and the WP:GNG. The sources that I could find were either press releases or insignificant coverage. The references in the article are self-published so per WP:NEXIST I looked only beyond. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added some external sources and extra information to the arcticle. The page is still a stub, however imho a marketleader on the nanosatellite market is notable enough to be on wikipedia. Other simular companies are on wikipedia too, like Planet Labs for example. There are already a bunch of links to this page from other pages [39], however there are many more to come as the page is relatively new so other, older, pages lack the link to ISISpace. Vuurkillertje (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Apparently, it has launched 101 satellites. It seems notable to me. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:02, 5 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 deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Filzah (Malaysian actress) (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 article is a recreation of the article of the same name which previously have been deleted due to promotional. Fandi89 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @There'sNoTime: Is this similar enough to the Mira Filzah page for a speedy, along with block evasion for Belived7666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) via TheOn23 (talk · contribs)? I'd tag as speedy myself, but admin assistance is required here. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 4 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) 15:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Progress Wrestling events (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)

Despite the parent article being clearly notable, the list of events are simply non-notable events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep List items aren't required to be individually notable. If this 'Progress Wrestling' series of contests is distinct and notable, I can see justification for listing them in a separate list article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a single show has their own page, a list of "no links" isn't appropriate. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no policy supporting any such claim. One specific, and recognised, use of list articles is to gather those thing which aren't individually notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A list of 10 non-notable events do not add up to one notable list IMO. Didn't say it was a policy, stating my opinion that if NO items on the list are notable, then the list isn't notable either. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Progress Wrestling is notable but a series of articles related to it have previously been deleted; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Sourcing looks impressive at first glance but exclusively uses Cagematch which doesn't prove notability WP:PW/RS. This also fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Abcmaxx (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Source wise relies almost entirely on Cagematch, pushing it below the threshold of WP:GNG. Fulfills WP:CRUFT in my humble opinion. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:12, 10 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) 15:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MyNation Hope Foundation (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 evidence of notability, only one of the independent sources even mentions Mynation, and looking for other sources gives very few results. Fram (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any reliable sources Spiderone 19:22, 6 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 merge to Ctenochromis pectoralis. Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ctenochromis aff. pectoralis (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)

there are no verifiable sources for this "taxon", the IUCN no longer have an entry for it Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it was once considered a valid taxon, it is notable. Perhaps the article should be changed to a redirect to the current taxon. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it considered a valid taxon though? It was an "undescribed species", my understanding is that without a formal description there is no valid taxon. This seems to have been a case of there's a fish that looks like C. pectoralis but, possibly because it was outside the known range of that taxon, may not be C. pectoralis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was never considered a valid taxon. When taxonomists use "aff." it generally means "I don't think it's the same as (species name following aff.), but it is most similar to that species". The IUCN link in the taxonbar at the bottom of the page still works. This is one of dozens of articles for undescribed species created by PolBot based on IUCN listings (other can be found in Category:Undescribed species and subcategories). I don't see a reason to single this particular one out; they should be discussed collectively. I'm inclined to think they all should be deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put through an AfD for the others, then. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Would it be worthwhile to have a sentence in Ctenochromis pectoralis saying that so-and-so observed a fish that resembles C. pectoralis but may be a different, related species? XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (qualified) to Ctenochromis pectoralis - I am with XOR'easter on this. Unless someone can come up with a scientific report characterizing this fish (which of necessity would then call it something else so it would take a real expert to even tell if it is the same), then it isn't notable. If the sum total of what is known about this not-formally-characterized critter is that it seems to be similar to the documented species but may not be the same, a single sentence on the other page is the way to go, and then only if we can find a source that isn't a dead link. Otherwise, Delete. Agricolae (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge maybe a (sourced) sentence to Ctenochromis pectoralis per Agricolae. I was originally stumped when I first saw this AfD a few days ago after Google popped up broken link to the IUCN redlist. Since it's not a formally described species, I'd normally say delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, but a brief mention at the target page could be appropriate. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - fishbase.de says C. pectoralis is from "streams in south eastern Tanzania near Korogwe. Also reported from Kenya." That report of them in Kenya is from Okeyo, D.O., 1998, "Updating names, distribution and ecology of riverine fish of Kenya in the Athi-Galana-Sabaki River drainage system", Naga, ICLARM Q. 21(1):44-53 [40], and it places them in the Mazima Springs, Tsavo drainage (p. 50). Looking at the IUCN page for C. aff. pectoralis it has almost zero information, except for a map that shows a range that by my eye seems to roughly correspond to the same Tsavo drainage. It seems reasonable, given how little information we have, to conclude that what IUCN is calling Ctenochromis aff. pectoralis is the same thing that Okeyo called a population of Haplochromis pectoralis, a synonym for C. pectoralis. The question then is what makes IUCN conclude they are a distinct (maybe just geography) and is IUCN's position on this noteworthy enough to justify a whole separate stub page when C. pectoralis itself is just a stub? Adding to the confusion, fishbase says that IUCN lists C. pectoralis as extinct, yet a 2003 situation report from IUCN on the Pangani basin (Tanzania) says that none of the river's fish species are thought to be endangered, and it lists C. pectoralis as one of the river's endemic species.[41] Agricolae (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]