< 19 July 21 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Painface[edit]

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements. Has preveiosly passed AFD per WP:Band #6, but that seemed to be based on previously unsourced/ or false information that other members of slipknot where in the band. Anders Colsefni is the only one from Slipknot in the band, and he is not notable himself. RF23 (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 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 09:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Di Lorenzo[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NPROF. The sources don't convince me that WP:GNG is met, either - I don't have access to the Nydailynews source, but the rest are either primary sources or trivial mentions. The interview in Chronicle of Higher Education is an in-depth source, but on its own it is not sufficient. It was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor, but has quite a few edits by other people so probably isn't eligible for G5 - most of the recent edits have been serious BLP violations, though. bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dean of a school within NYU does not satisfy #6. That criterion is only for heads of entire universities. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is a named deanship like a named chair for notability purposes? I honestly can't recall if this question has ever come up before. XOR'easter (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject was dean of New York University's School of Professional Studies. I'd presume, David Eppstein, that the position of a NYU school dean is at least equally notable as the position of a named chair or [a] distinguished professor at a major institution of higher education, per WP:NACADEMIC #5. Is it not? -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Sometimes deans hold ex officio named chairs, but those don't count as the sort of named chair that would pass #5, because that criterion is supposed to be for scholarship (not managerial position) at a level clearly above the average full professor. (It's the same reason that named assistant professorships don't pass: because that's not what the criterion is about.) And sometimes deans have that level of scholarship, but other times they are just managers, so we need to find other evidence for it than being a dean. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to look this over again and come back. If we do not have #5 or #6 I can't see anything else one can hold on to. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC #5 & #6, then there is no Wikinotability to defend here. It surprised me that deans of schools within a university can't qualify but a careful reading of the guideline makes that clear, since it refers to the highest administrative post of an academic institution. I'll have to withdraw my Keep suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do I manage to write with invisible ink online? I have no idea. -The Gnome (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given both the split views and un-concluded NACADEMIC discussion that has occurred post the last relist I feel this warrants a third relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:28, 20 July 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick W. Penney[edit]

Frederick W. Penney (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)

Lacking references, little or no edivence of notability COIhunter (talk) 22:42, 20 July 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L&C Mortgages[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either repackaged press releases, not from reliable sources, not significant, or all of the above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 20 July 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’A morte ’e Carnevale[edit]

’A morte ’e Carnevale (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)

Crappy bot article. No sources and not meeting WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 19:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 20 July 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 09:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chobanian[edit]

Michael Chobanian (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, promotional article about a non-notable blockchain entrepreneur. Likely covert advertising. MER-C 19:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:47, 20 July 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 09:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modèle déposé[edit]

Modèle déposé (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)

Crappy bot article. No sources and not meeting WP:NFILM nor GNG. » Shadowowl | talk 19:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 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 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Coomber[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yvonne Coomber (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)

Here we are again, nothing much has changed since the last afd, at least nothing significant to warrant any more coverage than when we previously deleted it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed several sources that did not mention the subject. The last source, "affordable art fair" is a pay-to-play online gallery for selling paintings.96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, all the pages that include saatchiart.com: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=saatchiart.com --Theredproject (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How do we go about getting them blacklisted?96.127.242.226 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be blacklisted. Why should Saatchi Art be blacklisted? Bus stop (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is like Artsy, without the editorial, and without any curatorial process. ANYONE can make a page. They bought the name from the Saatchi Gallery, but have turned it into an online marketplace. They are trading on the historical value of the name Saatchi, but it is an entirely different entity.--Theredproject (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not spam. WP:BLACKLIST says "The spam blacklist is a control mechanism that prevents an external link from being added to an English Wikipedia page when the URL matches one listed at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It mostly lists spammers, but also includes URL redirection services (which could otherwise be used to bypass blacklisting)." Bus stop (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that ISSU is not a reliable source: it is self-publishing and promotion.96.127.242.226 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that Saatchi Art was a reliable source. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice.96.127.242.226 (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crux of the question is not whether Saatchi Art is a reliable source but whether it is spam, and I don't mean the luncheon meat. Bus stop (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All that matters here is that Saatchi Art is not reliable source. Whether it is spam probably should not be settled here, but at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions. I have removed the suggestion to blacklist. Vexations (talk) 12:56, 22 July 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 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond (online platform)[edit]

Beyond (online platform) (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)

promotional and non-notable. The references are either mere notices, or their own publicity. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am the dwead piwate Notability, there will be no surwivors.
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 The Sugarhill Gang. Sandstein 09:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jump on It![edit]

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

It’s unsourced and lacking notability, it’s better for it to be deleted. ~SML • TP 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Under what criteria does it pass? ~SML • TP 20:55, 27 July 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 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 145 (India)[edit]

National Highway 145 (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a relevant article naveenpf (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 20 July 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 09:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 142 (India)[edit]

National Highway 142 (India) (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 relevent naveenpf (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below, Necrothesp with links to key lists showing it doesn't seem to exist at all. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:08, 26 July 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. The additional sources found over the course of the AFD appear to be sufficient to meet GNG. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marios Kyriazis[edit]

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

Non-notable subject T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were probably deleted for being self-published, self-promoting, and added to the article by the subject himself. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep reason 1: "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected." Please start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-metal bands[edit]

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

The article is not that notable to have it’s own page, it’s better to merge it to post-metal. ~SML • TP 17:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Marvel and DC[edit]

Comparison of Marvel and DC (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 is largely unsourced and written like a WP:OR essay. Some references are unverifiable or give only historical context for one company or the other. "Multiple issues" template has been up for one year with no significant improvement. HalJor (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Karaoke Collection (Westlife video album)[edit]

The Karaoke Collection (Westlife video album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "karaoke" album isn't a release by the band. Karaoke albums are also rarely notable in their own right. This page is purely promotional (all sources listed are from Sony) and there is no significant independent coverage of this release out there. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. DIscussion created by a (now blocked) sock. No prejudice against re-nomination if other editors deem appropriate. StarM 01:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somatemps[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Somatemps (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 clear sources discussing this organization directly, which seems to be nothing more than a local group of friends in Barcelona who oppose independence. They are not on Spanish Wikipedia, they do not have an actual website outside a Mexican website which is not clear is theirs. It seems to have been blown up to be some kind of paramilitary gestapo by pro-Catalan independence people who want to slander other larger organizations such as Societat Civil Catalana. The emphasis is claiming they are "far right" where this is not backed by any credible source, this so they can claim SCC was "founded by far right folks". Its not a political party. There is not one source I see which tackles their existence directly. Astroturfing coming from activists, without a doubt. Miska5DT (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:RileyBugz http://www.elmundo.es/cataluna/2017/09/27/59cab92b468aebb9798b4687.html El Mundo describes them as a curiosity of a group of friends who buys ham for policemen. That is the only reliable souce we have here for an article which describes them as a scary and "notable" Far right organization". Please...Miska5DT (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The user who created this page has been blocked indefinitely due to sock puppetry. Shouldn't this deletion request be removed? Thanks. Filiprino (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Thanks to the recently added sources, the clear consensus seems to be that the article meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basque School of Boise[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Private pre-kindergarten school for a handful of children Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have noticed but I am not originally from Paris and I am also a pilotari so do not try and suggest that I am biased. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing there. Where it is stated that this is the one and only Basque language school outside the Basque country, which is a strong claim for notability. This source there is an excellent, substantial source, explaining about the Basque government explicitly supports this school. --Doncram (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And the other source there goes to the school's website, whose history page has substantial information, including the statement it is the only Basque language pre-school outside the country (maybe there is a school at some other level?). About merger, the Basque community in Boise is covered in three sections of the Boise article, and it would be appropriate for there to be a link from each one of those, better than repeating a paragraph or two about this school and its creation in each of three places there, plus repeating in other articles like one needed for the Basque Block. --Doncram (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find another secondary source for the school that gives significant coverage? It's a passing mention in Los Angeles Times [22] This Al Jazeera America article might work: [23] This one's by Blue Review but it's more of a blog [24] Boise Weekly has a passing mention [25] Euskalcultura has a passing mention [26] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's to be kept around it should be rename to Boiseko Ikastola, and it needs to be organized better as many of the sentences are redundant. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my vote above as there have been enough news articles to make it a stub. I would suggest someone rewrite it to make it a coherent stub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Ivory Coast floods[edit]

2018 Ivory Coast floods (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:NEVENT especially WP:PERSISTENCE as all the reports that I could find date form the 19 June or there abouts Dom from Paris (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 20 July 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) 13:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Sofos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dino Sofos (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 real sources, questionable notability Jac16888 Talk 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 23 July 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) 13:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special K (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article does not support notability, and I cannot find anything online which does (although granted searching for Special K isn't the easiest thing so I am happy to be proven wrong) Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:33, 20 July 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 Userfy. Going to move this to Alpha Centauri 777's userspace as User:Alpha Centauri 777/Australian Transhumanist Association Inc., and tag the resulting redirect for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R2. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Transhumanist Association Inc.[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG unsourced article for an organisation formed in 2018 Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of every organisation that exists. We don't have to redirect but if really it is useful why not redirect to transhumanism. I honestly don't understand why just because an article has been created regardless of notability there has to be an alternative to deltion. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: in light of the comment below do you really think that this article should be kept as an option? It doesn't matter how this article fits in with any subject. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this organisation comes anywhere near meeting GNG. I don't understand what you are trying to suggest. This article is totally unsourced and for good reason it has just been created and one of the first things that the creator did was to write a Wikipedia page about his organisation. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I created the page because I created the association. I noted that in my user page as Wikipedia told me to and this is why there is no sources to the page, because it's first-hand knowledge. I'm sorry if I've done something wrong, but I would prefer if the page wasn't deleted. Perhaps merged but why can't it just stay up??? - User, Alpha Centauri 777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Centauri 777 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As everyone is OK with Userfy this can be closed I think now. As I am not withdrawing I think it would be better if someone else closed but as a page mover I can do the moves afterwards. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:29, 27 July 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. No consensus to delete; a possible merger may be proposed on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 15:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not evaluated[edit]

Not evaluated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As pointed out on talk, this isn't actually a thing. NE isn't a status, it's the absence of a status. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, SarekOfVulcan but there are reliable sources that define, mention or use that category, or base their country red data lists on IUCN criteria (see here, here, here, here, here, here and below). Unfortunately, by the IUCN definition of this category, a 'Not Evaluated' taxon won't have been assessed yet, and therefore will not be on the IUCN database until such time as it has been assessed. And once it's been added to the IUCN database it will, by definition, no longer by a 'Not Evaluated' category species! I realise this seems oxymoronic - but in conservation terms, highlighting that there remain millions of taxa which are categorised as 'Not Evaluated' really is important, as the source I quoted above indicates. As a Wikipedian I fully understand how assigning notability to an apparently amorphous conservation category like this which contains 'everything else scientists haven't looked at yet' seems to go against all we hold dear and verifiable, but not deleting one from a suite of closely related, highly significant and clearly-defined world conservation categories does, in my view, seem worth arguing for. I believe I read on the IUCN website that every single mammal species on the planet has now been assessed by the IUCN, so there will not be any 'Not Evaluated' mammals on the database at all, but, by their absence, there are innumerable fish, bryophytes, arthropods etc etc which fall into that important category. And it's the category I'm arguing for, not the random list of species someone added to the page. This source makes two separate statements which I have concatenated here:  As of 2015 IUCN had evaluated over 76,000 species, of which 24,000 and classed as threatened. Species are placed into nine categories ranging from extinct to not evaluated. Of the nine categories, animals which fallen into the categories Endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable are classified as threatened species. . . . Not evaluated: Estimates for the number of species on Earth range from 3-30 million species meaning this category of those not yet evaluated is the by far the largest of all. And here is a single country's reference to the category of 'Not Evaluated' being used in their own national Red List. I will add them to the article, and propose that we delete the entire selection of Not Evaluated species from that page on the basis that they cannot be verified by their absence from a definitive database, even though that is precisely what defines them being placed in that category. (I do hope this rather long and circuitous response makes at least some sense!) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update Article has now been improved to demonstrate NE is a valid and significant global IUCN categorisation, just like all the other eight IUCN categories, and is not just a pointless 'absence of a status', as suggested by the OP. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 24 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesses (band)[edit]

Ramesses (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)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Has 1 not user generated source, which is a listing of songs with promotional text. » Shadowowl | talk 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Schwerdt[edit]

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

a bit part in one episode of a soap List of Home and Away characters (2016) and a bit part in a feature film does not meet WP:NACTOR. Way WP:TOOSOON. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 20 July 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. I note that the article Hangthong Thammawattana does not currently exist, and will start a procedural WP:RM to possibly re-target the article about the person (who clearly meets WP:NPOL). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Hangthong Thammawattana[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. No evidence of notability, WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 13:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 23 July 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 Pornthip Rojanasunand#Jenjira Ploy-angunsri murder investigation. Given that there's a subheading "Jenjira Ploy-angunsri murder investigation" in the bio of Pornthip Rojanasunand, that seems to be the logical redirect target (which also seems to be the consensus here). Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jenjira Ploy-angunsri[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. No evidence of notability, WP:NOTNEWS. GiantSnowman 13:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 21 July 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 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Public Affairs Education (journal)[edit]

Journal of Public Affairs 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 PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODed by article creator with reason "The journal is a leader within the discipline. Additional references have been added from sources outside of the journal." However, there's no evidence that this is a "leader within the discipline" (and it is highly unlikely that such a "leader" would not be in any selective index). References added (beside a WP article) are in-passing mentions in two books, which is certainly not enough to pass GNG. PROD reason therefore still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 00:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry, but your argument basically boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Notoriety is not the same thing as notability in the WP sense, which has nothing to do with merit or lack thereof. And notability is not inherited. Some citations are to be expected, but to make a journal notable (in the WP sense) you'll need quite a lot more than that. And concerning the databases, you're completely wrong. Yes, this may be true for, say, EBSCO databases, but to get into Scopus or Clarivate Analytics you have to pass an in-depth analysis by a committee of experts. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, I like the journal, but it is also a journal that is massively important to its field. In regards to indexes and whether they pass in-depth analysis. I am correct. An article in the Journal of Librarianship and Information Science found evidence that predatory journals were listed in SSCI, ESCI, and SCOPUS. They also made it into ERIC and MEDLINE for what its worth. Notoriety and notability has very little to do with being indexed. If nothing else, JPAE has publicly said that they have applied for the indexes, but as I stated earlier, they take years to make decisions. Given that being included in the indexes is a bad measure for anything, what do you need to see added to the listing for you to be ok with it? I already met the standards you listed on your page of at least two references, so clearly you give a moving target. What is your target right now? Travlinamos 18:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no moving target. You either show that this meets WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, either one is sufficient. It's fine with me if you want to shove WP:NJournals aside. In that case, please show how this meets WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would argue that it does meet WP:NJournals. Of the three criterion, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with indexes and I would argue that JPAE meets both of those. 2.b, for instance, asks about citations for a journal and 2.c talks about inclusion of the journal in academic libraries. JPAE is included in the library of every university in the US that has a Master of Public Administration program and a search on worldcat will show that it's included is a lot more than that, including a global audience. Also, a search on Google Scholar will quickly show that the journal has a hefty number of citations. Beyond that, 3 focuses on the historical importance of the journal in its subject area. For people in the field, this is certainly met. Those issues aside, what would it take for you to be happy that it meets WP:GNG. It's a journal and finding other journals to write about how amazing a different journal is will not happen. So what kind of evidence would you need? Travlinamos 20:00, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here at WP, we work with sources. I'm perfectly willing to believe you that this has "historical significance", but that is not enough. You'll need independent sources that tell us that this has historical significance. As for the citations, those are really very modest. A single researcher would not qualify WP:PROF with them, let alone a complete journal. So, no, this does not meet NJournals in any way, so I guess you're stuck with GNG.
Comment I am confused because what you are telling me isn't consistent with the WP:NJournals page. According to the page, historical significance is enough if it is historically important to the subject area. That said, the page lists other criterion in which notability can be obtained, which JPAE meets. As my last comment mentioned, it also fits with the other criterion under notability. I reference back to your moving target as on your own page you said it just needed two sources. I've met the two sources, I've met the criterion established on WP:NJournals for the article, so what's the issue? I'm accepting that you are going to be against the entry no matter what, as evidenced by the moving target. I'm asking what is the level of independent sources that you need to see referenced on the page. If its two, as your own page says, fine. If it's 3, ok. I can get more; however, I suspect that no matter how many I put up you will come back with a different number. You're already challenging the qualifications of the authors of the references I am using, despite that they literally are the leaders in the field. So, what is it that you want to see and I will get it posted there. Travlinamos 00:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not enough in a debate like this to say "it's historic", you need proof of that. And neither JSTOR nor EBSCOHost are considered selective enough to meet NJournals in these deletion debates. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that we don't agree. I propose that we now let other editors give their opinions, as this is becoming rather repetitive. --Randykitty (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's fair to let others give their opinions. All I had been asking is what it would take to convince you, but I was never able to get that out of you. Perhaps another editor will be able to answer the question so that I can add in the appropriate sources. Travlinamos 17:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. NJournals requires indexing in selective databases, which is not the case here, the journal is not even in Scopus, which is about the least selective database that we accept for showing notability. Being "historic": it's not enough to assert "this is historic". You need sources that substantiate such a claim. "Citations": GScholar lists a smathering of citations, far from what is needed to make a journal notable. Putting NJournals aside, to satisfy GNG you need multiple sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject in depth. A handful of citations in books does not satisfy this. So what is needed is indexation in a selective databse or significant sources. If those don't exist, the subject is not notable (in the WP sense of "having been noted"). If the journal is as central to its community as you say, it should be easy to find sources that confirm that. If those sources are absent, then apparently the journal is less stellar than you seem to think. I hop this clarifies the question about what is needed to make this notable. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I feel the sighs, I'm experiencing the same thing. As I noted in one of my comments, if you could tell me what it is you are looking for, I will get the references added. You are now saying multiple, independent and in-depth. I can get you multiples upon multiples of independent sources. If you want in-depth, absolutely every journal is going to be screwed. No journal editor would accept an article praising a different journal. So you've set up a barrier that absolutely no journal can ever pass. The publishing industry doesn't work that way. HOWEVER, given the there is a standard for WP:GNG, what does that look like for journals? I can give you citations for articles praising Frederickson (the guy that started the journal) which note his role in starting the journal as one of his key achievements, and he literally is the biggest name in the field. I can look at the list of journals in the field that are on Wikipedia and a number of them are pretty crappy journals (have you seen the entry for Voluntas?). I don't know what it is about JPAE that you have a problem, but whatever standard you're applying isn't clear and isn't consistent and isn't realistic. After all, I'm not sure you understand the requirements of NJournals. Take a look, there are several criteria that could be used to meet it. I'm not saying JPAE does, but it leaves room for other reasons than just indexing.Travlinamos 21:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]EBSCOHost
Thanks Headbomb. There was/is some information on the journal under NASPAA. There used to be more, but some of it was removed in the past week or so. Initially I had started with just building out the section in NASPAA, but it seemed awkward to leave it there, which is when I went to the separate page. I hadn't heard of MIAR before, but just looked it up (The journal is at: http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1087-7789). Found that it is listed in ESCI, which I hadn't realized. Travlinamos 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strong argument. As for other databases, as part of WP:BEFORE I checked the Clarivate Analytics databases as well as Scopus and this journal isn't in any of them (except the rather unselective ESCI). --Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah Randykitty. You are correct that the journal is not listed in SCOPUS or SSCI. It is listed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index. I specifically linked to the WP article on this because the WP article notes its importance as being "rated as among the most important on the web." The problem I am having with addressing your concerns is that you constantly present a moving target. If ESCI is not selective, then WP itself is wrong in defining it. I chose to believe WP over you. Based on the WP page for ESCI, JPAE should be included. That said, what is your absence of selectiveness based on? The process of applying for ESCI is rigorous and it takes several years to get through it. True, it doesn't have the analytics analysis that SSCI has, but that doesn't mean it isn't selective. Plenty of journals get turned down. I am truly sorry you don't like that, but either the page for ESCI needs to be edited or you need to update your understanding as to standards. For now, it meets it based on WP's own wording. Regardless, that's not why I brought the discussion on indexes back into the mix. I was responding to Headbomb and the conversation about MIAR. While I was looking at MIAR, I was also looking at what support other journals from the public administration field have for being included on WP. Based on what I know of those journals and what I see of their WP pages, JPAE is a much more important journal to the field than some of them. That said, since you reengaged in the conversation, I was hoping you would finally address my question from earlier. Given that no journal is ever going to publish a piece discussing how another journal is the best, there is no way to ever show WP:GNG for any journal according to the standard as you interpret it. So what shows it? Tell me what shows that and I'll find the support. I can add everything in the world to the article to support it, but nothing is going to convince you. Which is why I would rather you tell me first what would convince you so I can meet that, otherwise you'll just change the level again. Travlinamos 01:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be weird to say here, but WP is not always a good source. ESCI even includes some predatory journals (I have to search for the reference) and is not what the publisher would like us to think. Also, they themselves give an important signal that ESCI is less than the other indices, because the Journal Citation Reports cover all jurnals covered in the other databases, but not those in ESCI. And despite what you think, sometimes other publications (like the Times Higher Education) do write about academic journals (see one of our GA articles, Genes, Brain and Behavior), sometimes even shortly after a journal is launched. It's rare, of course, but not unheard of. Generally however, a journal only meets GNG if they screw up royally and there are multiple sources that report on this. But if you reject NJournals, GNG is all that is left. Anyway, I repeat that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument to use in these discussions and maintain that none of the databases in which this journal is included is selective in the sense used by NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You've just made my point for me about moving the bar. If WP is supposed to be a source of information that has been verified and researched, telling me that you're discounting it so that it fits your want to reject the submission supports my argument that you just want to move the bar so that you can reject the article. Perhaps the WP article about ESCI is wrong, but then your issue is not with the article about JPAE but rather with ESCI because the article about JPAE is meeting the standard according to what WP published. Saying we have to discount what WP already has published is like the hypocrisy of parents telling their kids to do what they say, not what they do. Plus, its bad research. Any journal anywhere would desk reject a manuscript for that flawed rationale. So, since you're discounting ESCI, we should clear a few things up because it looks like you don't have a good idea of what the index actually is. If nothing else, the journal citation reports do include information from journals in ESCI (see you enjoy independent sources, check out https://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/what-is-the-emerging-sources-citation-index/). Journals in ESCI don't get an impact factor, but they are used when calculating the factor for others. All of the indexes in the Web of Science are. If you are concerned about predatory journals, we have another issue. There is evidence that SSCI has predatory journals in it as well. I point you back to the article in Journal of Librarianship and Information Science that came out last month that showed this. The problem is that you have to be careful when you determine what qualifies as a predatory journal. Beall's list was shut down because it turns out he included nonpredatory journals on the list. Since you call yourself a Beallian, I assume that's the list you're going by. Beall's list was just him making the reviews and decisions. Whereas Clarivate Analytics has a group of people who review and make determinations about journals. They have a vested interest in making sure they get it right, whereas was nobody but him. From a scientific standpoint, there is more validity to what Clarivate Analytics does that what Beall did. If you are throwing out journals because of the occasional journal that might be predatory has made it through, well then there are no indexes that can ever be used. If your concern is about selectivity, I would encourage you to spend time actually reading about ESCI and how they make their decisions. They are selective. Not every journal gets in, they actively kick journals out as well. They have a selection process. Literally the only difference is the consideration of journal analytics (and believe me, there is ample evidence that shows that this can be gamed as well). All that goes back to support the brief statement on the WP page that ESCI is selective. I would encourage you to follow appropriate research protocals and address your concerns with the ESCI page and then start challenging everyone else rather than going on how you are. It's inappropriate. On that note, I'm done with all my commenting on this page. WP will make its decision either way, I hope they choose to include it. If not, oh well, I have other things that I can do with my time. Travlinamos 16:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh all you want. All I did was remove puffery that was either sourced to Clarivate or not found in the source given. As I said, it's not for nothing that other WP articles cannot be used as a sources. AS for the bar, it hasn't moved. Just check previous AfDs for journal articles, ESCI has never been accepted as selective enough to satisfy NJournals. By its nature, it contains new journals that people think may become important and may make it to the other indices later. Or not, as the case might be. Being in ESCI is a strong sign of WP:TOOSOON. As for the rest, I'm sorry, but WP:TLDR applies here. I also have better things to do with my time than explain over and over again issues that have been chewed over multiple times already. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Randykitty said. The ES in ESCI is for Emerging Sources, meaning sources (journals) that librarians ought to watch for and keep an eye on, as the preliminary evidence points to these journals being on their way to become important in their fields, but aren't quite there yet. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Brezsny[edit]

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

The sources for this biography may have passed muster when it was created in 2008, but they don't now. It has superficial referenciness, but there is a lack of sources which achieve the Wikipedia trifecta of reliable, independent and secondary. Google finds press releases masquerading as articles, non-independent PR bios and little else. The closest to a substantive claim to notability is writing a single song that was later recorded by Jefferson Starship (but was never a single or B-side). Guy (Help!) 12:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to this discussion
    • "Brilliant! Absorbing! Wildly useful! Rob Brezsny gets my nomination for best prophet in a starring role. He's a script doctor for the soul." - Marisa Tomei, Academy Award-winning actress
    • "A book so weird it just might drive you stark raving sane." - Robert Anton Wilson
    • “I’ve seen the future of American literature and its name is Rob Brezsny.” - novelist Tom Robbins
    • “Brezsny holds his own place next to cultural shamans like Robert Anton Wilson, Timothy Leary, William Burroughs, and Ken Kesey.” - Popmatters.com
    • “The prose is poetic, circular, dancing, combining the narrative voices of Anais Nin, Tom Robbins, and David Ignatow.” - Rain Taxi
    • “Rob Brezsny is contemporary literature’s Sage Against the Machine.” - Good Times, Santa Cruz, CA
    • “What Rob Brezsny does with words is grammarye, the Old English term for magic. With his strange brew of macho feminism and poetic rationalism, Brezsny weaves a yarn crazy enough to be true and real enough to subvert the literalist virus of cynicism now immobilizing the collective mindscape.” - Antero Alli, author of Astrologik, Angel Tech, and The Vertical Oracle
    • “Millions of people already live their lives in accordance with Rob Brezsny’s ‘Free Will Astrology’ prophecies. But the time has come for a deeper dose of Brezsny’s brain. Enter this temple if you dare!” - David Ulansey, author of The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries

Ronald Joe Record (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Inspiratrix (talk). Although I have indicated a preference to keep what appears to be your article, I would suggest that such self-promotion lacks a certain class and patronises fellow editors. We are all capable of weighing sources as per notablity guidelines. I still believe that "you" pass WP:NOTABLE, but such posts as above seems desperate. Tone it down and let the community decide, if you would be so kind. Ta. Irondome (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, Irondome. I apologize for being unfamiliar with Wikipedia etiquette. I thought if I provided sources for research, it would help the discussion. But I'm fine with going along with your suggestion. I'll delete it. Later note: I did delete it, but it seems to have returned. Not sure why. Beyond My Ken or Irondome, feel free to delete it. Inspiratrix (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Inspiratrix (talk)[reply]
  • I undeleted it. It's generally the case (although there are exceptions) that once a comment has been responded to, it should not be deleted. You can strike through a comment you wish to withdraw, using the <s> and </s> tags at the beginning at the end of it, but deleting it turns the responses into non sequitors. It also goes against the general principle of transparency on Wikipedia. Comments can be altered, even after they've been responded to, but, again, that should be done in such a way as to make it obvious that it's been changed. Like octopus this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have no idea about any of the other stuff, but he does seem to be notable in his role as an astrology columnist published in many alt-weeklies for many years, and a somewhat unique approach to the subject... AnonMoos (talk) 08:31, 23 July 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. ansh666 07:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hershberger[edit]

Sally Hershberger (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)

Only has 1 reliable source. Includes WP:FLOWERY language like famous, well-known, successful. There are a lot of unsourced claims in this article. » Shadowowl | talk 10:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:35, 20 July 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 09:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-City area (Alameda County, California)[edit]

Tri-City area (Alameda County, California) (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 an administrative area, no sources found to indicate significance beyond it existing. no redirect needed, as this entire name is too long a search term. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:32, 20 July 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 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feefeefly[edit]

Feefeefly (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)

Unremarkable person with no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Creator has written multiple POVy articles which have been deleted or currently nominated for deletion. Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting mostly to give people time to evaluate User:Underbar dk's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:32, 20 July 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. ansh666 07:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Environmental, Inc.[edit]

CJ Environmental, Inc. (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, cited only to its own websites and a press release. Speedy deletion declined, no reason given. I can't find any general, secondary coverage about this company or any reason to believe it is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The problem here is that a valid rationale for deletion has not been advanced. A guideline- or policy-based rationale for deletion is not stated in the nomination; instead the nomination only discusses sources within the article. Also, subject notability, if that's what this nomination is supposed to be based upon (it's not stated in the nomination), is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles; it's based upon available sources. See WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's main notability guideline page for more information. North America1000 12:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Deiros[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Martín Deiros (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)

Nothing has changed since this was closed as speedy keep. Renominating. Old reason : 4 sources, of which 2 are unreliable and 1 is a mention. The article says that he won the Pampa award, however, this is not stated in the source. » Shadowowl | talk 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:31, 20 July 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 Liberation (Christina Aguilera album)#Release and promotion. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Tour (Christina Aguilera)[edit]

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

As it stands, it fails WP:NTOUR. Just routine coverage, and just a list of tour dates. WP:TOOSOON. --woodensuperman 11:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:37, 20 July 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. Obviously no consensus is forthcoming. Further discussion on the merge proposal can be held on the articles' talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splashtop Remote[edit]

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

No indication of notability, promotional content. I prodded the page a few days ago; some independent sources were added, but that's not enough to write a neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia article. Some of the added sources don't strike me as reliable either. Significant parts of the content are still unreferenced or based solely on the Splashtop website. At least one of the new references is cited for a promotional statement it does not actually support. On the other hand, information about shortcomings or criticism contained in those same sources wasn't added.

I tried to look for reliable sources that would allow us to write a better article before prodding it; I couldn't find anything better than what it currently has, which is too little to establish notability. Huon (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (not original nominator) am also nominating the following related pages because while this is a potential merge target in terms of wikipedia notability for corporations WP:NCORP will be more stringent that for the software product WP:NSOFT.

Splashtop Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also suffers from WP:NPOV but not to same blatant extent. There is an article for a discontinued product Spashtop OSSplashtop OS of a different type which would not likely be good merge to Spashtop Remote so have chosen not to nominate.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I questioned the prod of Splashtop Remote on its talk page as I found some credible an neutral reviews that indicated the product took a different approach to some competing products and might suit some sections. A subsequent article edit used a review non-neutrally and added multiple external links pointing to buy me or free trial links on the product website. I added a POW template to the article. I'd consider a keep Spashtop Remote with a merge in of Spashtop Inc. if article issues on the former were addressed by someone else.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect as proposed by power~enwiki if somebody manages to straighten out the name. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Radio Pop[edit]

East Radio Pop (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 source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:12, 20 July 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 and redirect to Long Guang. Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long Guang Xinwen Wang[edit]

Long Guang Xinwen Wang (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 source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 11:11, 20 July 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 09:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suit combination – 10 missing[edit]

Suit combination – 10 missing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Suit combination – J missing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Suit combination – K10 missing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMANUAL. Having an article for every single suit combination in bridge does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Coverage of a specific suit combination in reliable sources is limited to a computer-generated entry in a list of all possible suit combinations. This name is also not a plausible search term for Suit combination so redirecting wouldn't make sense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 10:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. It's snowing.Whilst it might technically violate elements of NOTDIRECTORY, common-sense ought to prevail. (non-admin closure) ∯WBGconverse 13:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of emergency telephone numbers[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NOT; in particular, it fails Wikipedia is not a directory - "It is not the White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic." I could also detail the concerns about the reliability of user-generated content being used to collate emergency telephone numbers, but that's why WP:NOTYELLOW exists, to prevent this. Fish+Karate 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
List of emergency telephone numbers in Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fish+Karate 10:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
…or you've slipped on some guano in a place that's not only uninhabited but also has its own flag (911 again). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
​Depends which you mean; in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands it's 999, in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands it's 112, in Navassa Island it's 911, and of course there's the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands where it's 000. You know how I know what all these emergency numbers are? Because we have a list of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Navassa Island flag. That explains how an island with no population got a flag, and a national anthem written by John Cage. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
…and on the uninhabited coral atoll Clipperton Island you dial 15 for an ambulance, 17 for the police and 18 for the fire brigade. 16 puts you through to Agence nationale de sécurité sanitaire de l'alimentation, de l'environnement et du travail, who'll give you ten recipes for land crab. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:49, 22 July 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 ABP News. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ABP Live[edit]

ABP Live (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)

ABP Live is actually the name for English website and social media profile of ABP Group — means the TV channel isn't ever exist. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Codeforces[edit]

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

A previous PROD was reversed but notability still has not been established. The subject is not notable, failing WP:NORG and WP:NWEB as there is no significant coverage of it in reliable sources. wumbolo ^^^ 12:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:23, 20 July 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) 09:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Shekshnia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stanislav Shekshnia (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)

queried deletion Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Pilot[edit]

Stone Pilot (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)

Fictional elements with no notability Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:09, 20 July 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 and redirect to Airship. If necessary, the redirect can be turned into a dab page. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Ship[edit]

Sky Ship (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)

Deletion request in the similar vein to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants of The Edge Chronicles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Galerider. Fictional elements with no notability. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Galerider[edit]

The Galerider (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)


Deletion request in the similar vein to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plants of The Edge Chronicles. Fictional elements with no notability. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 02:55, 22 July 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divii School[edit]

Divii School (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/WP:NCORP. WP:COI is obvious, sources are lacking. Kleuske (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ismat Beg[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines PROFTEST and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources
Google Scholar shows they have been cited 3,355 times, with an h-index of 30
  • The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level
A gold medal from the Pakistan Academy of Sciences is a prestigious national award.
  • The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association
He is one of the 100 fellows of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences, a highly selective body that elects no more than five new fellows per year.
  • The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research
He is a distinguished professor at Lahore School of Economics. List of academic ranks#Pakistan confirms the significance of being a Distinguised National Professor in the country.
  • The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area
He is the editor of 12 journals.
WP:NACADEMIC states that 'once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.' Therefore once any one of the NACADEMIC criteria have been shown to be met through independent sources, the other claims in the article can be verified through non-independent sources. 'if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the General Notability Guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.' Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 July 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 District. With appreciation for Eastmain's efforts, while this Afd is being closed as a merge (given Bearian's ambivalence with either choice), if any editor wishes to re-create this article with the references provided, there's no prejudice against that (and against an early re-nomination thereon) (non-admin closure) Lourdes 08:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal utility district[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 09:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TechNet (lobbying organization)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough out there to qualify this for WP:NCORP. I'm seeing a lot of single mentions on other company pages saying things along the lines of "TechNet was involved in this company's lobbying efforts" but beyond that not really a whole lot. Majora (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 20 July 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. Relists haven't attracted any further input. Michig (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolves of the Third Reich[edit]

Werewolves of the Third Reich (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)

Run-of-the-mill horror film from 2017. No impact, no awards, no famous connections, and a straight-to-DVD release. Wikipedia is not IMDB Lite. Calton | Talk 11:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 20 July 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 chess variants. Pretty good consensus that while there are sufficient sources to meet WP:V, there's not enough to meet WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three-check chess[edit]

Three-check chess (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)

Rhodo, at WP:RSN, indicated a lack of reliable sources covering the topic in significance. This indicates the topic fails to meet the bar of the WP:GNG. Izno (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A condition like "inclusion in encyclopedia X" can indicate notability and appears in one or more SNGs when the encyclopedias it's talking about are the sort that are highly selective and serve as an indication of importance -- an indication that there are other sources covering the topic. Inclusion in most subject-specific encyclopedias is not a guarantee of that, however (except for certain biographical dictionaries, say), as they're often much more inclusive and/or more likely to include primary research and/or less subject to peer-review and/or less of a big deal (for whatever that's worth). In this case, it seems he was trying to include basically every variant he could find that he could write a little bit of content about. Even if he was a little selective, there's no indication (at least for this example -- I'm not trying to generalize) that there's any other coverage in secondary sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There you go again, mouthing off your own WP:OR re how Pritchard writes (again), when in fact you don't know what you're taking about (again). From the Introduction to The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, p. vii:

    [...] The length of this book might suggest that I have included everything on the subject I could find. This is far from being the case: hundreds of games have been excluded, and in many cases files have been compressed into an entry of just a few lines.

    I have applied certain criteria to selection. To earn an entry, a game must have been published in some form, or at the least played by a significant number of people outside the inventor's circle of family and friends; alternatively, it must have some historical or other good claim to inclusion. [...]

    I'm sick of shielding from your steady WP:IDHT WP:OR trying to steamroll discussions. E.g., your non-consensus pushy reorg at List of chess variants caused me to withdrawl from editing that article--permanently. --IHTS (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability, it’s also notable that through Chess.com and Lichess this game is widely played. Lichess records 2m games, I’m not as familiar with Chess.com to get similar records, but it’s the bigger site. There are plenty of articles about chess variants that exist due to mention by Pritchard but have little or no evidence of actually being significantly played—and could probably be nominated en mass—but this isn’t one of them IMO. —LukeSurl t c 06:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A published set of rules on a website that hosts the game may be reliable to cite for the rules, but it's very much a primary source and doesn't really add to notability (being primary, and not being actual coverage in the first place but rather a reproduction of the rules that, recent discussions aside, are the same everywhere on the internet). We don't necessarily need journals, but we need more than 3 sentences in one book and a bunch of primary sources. I think atomic chess and bughouse might be a decent example. They lowers the bar a little for the quality of sources, and thus should probably never be a GA/FA (bughouse being GA based on a bunch of SPS is bizarre, but that's another story), but there's enough coverage to make an article beyond what would be mentioned in the list article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:43, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reliable source, but being mentioned in a reliable source is not the same thing as establishing notability. Last time I checked, WikiProjects couldn't just declare that general notability guidelines don't apply to their subject. --tronvillain (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GNG isn't inflexible, it's a guideline. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There's a dearth of RS for CVs in general, unlike many other topic categories. --IHTS (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a guideline, but it's not obvious that chess variations should be a blanket exception, especially not just because "there's a dearth of RS for CVs in general." Why does this specific variation deserve an exception? --tronvillain (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least we agree: 1) there can be GNG exceptions; 2) a dearth of RSs for the topic category is an argument for flexibility (I think you're saying it's just not sufficient). I'm not trying to add add'l argument for it (others might), so am neutral (no vote). Thx for the discuss. --IHTS (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain, in detail and without personal attacks, why you think that a dearth of RSs for the topic category is an argument for flexibility. You seem to be claiming that the fact that other things in the cat don't meet our standards for notability means we should lower our standards. Why would we want to do that instead of simply deleting the rest of the non-notable pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: per GNG, common sense. (Now stop attempting to interact w/ me, anytime, anywhere, as you pledged to do on a public board long ago.) --IHTS (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied. Keep asking and you might end up blocked -- again. That agreement was contingent on you staying on the (non-computer-chess) chess pages. Now you are on a page where I am a regular, posting invalid (and rather silly) arguments like "per common sense". You don't get to suppress those who disagree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bug off. --IHTS (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that a dearth of sources for a topic category is a good argument for flexibility. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for being non-notable. You can't just say WP:ONLYGUIDELINE (or assert "common sense"), you have to make an argument for making an exception to a guideline, and given that notability is an extremely important guideline, it better be a great argument. --tronvillain (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking re topic category. (If it's the nature of the topic category that RSs are in general hard to find, IMO it's common sense to give that consideration re GNG flexibility. I thought you said it's an argument but not a sufficient one. Now you're saying the opposite.) --IHTS (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anywhere where he said it was a valid argument. Could you give us a direct quote where you believe that he indicated that? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not the place to argue content disputes. Take it to the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Assuming merge, my suggestion is to keep the current language at List of chess variants (i.e. Three-check chess: A player wins if he checks the opponent three times.). Or, a summary of the current lead text (proposed by LukeSurl @ Talk, and agreed by Reyk and me). My obvious concern is that Rhododendrites will alter to reflect his "checkmate is an additional winning objective" WP:OR. That's fine too, as long as it doesn't imply it comes from Pritchard, which it decidedly does not, which I've demonstrated at length elsewhere but won't repeat here. (Since I no longer edit List of chess variants, Rhododendrites knows there w/ be no challenge from me at the target article. And in addition, there's an editor going out of his way looking for ways he thinks will antagonize me, based on long-term held grudge. So thx, & good luck.) --IHTS (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, personalising it is poor reasoning for an Afd. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well after this they can only blame themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His manner of expressing himself obscures the fact that he generally knows what the hell he's talking about, certainly when it comes to chess. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as writing an encyclopedia goes, knowledge of chess is pretty worthless when coupled with an unwillingness to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, I'm not arguing to "not include" checkmate as a winning condition, only that it not be attributed to Pritchard. (Include it or not, just don't imply it comes from Pritchard.) It's not clear to me why you think merging changes anything. --IHTS (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is there "sufficient sourcing for a standalone article"? Nothing there establishes notability. There are four sources, two of which are essentially ads for playing the game on Chess.com or lichess.com, while the main source is a few sentences in an encyclopedia of chess variations. --tronvillain (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "The material in the article would have to be severely cut down to only two or three sentences to fit in the suggested target" is factually incorrect. Zonal chess has five sentences. Chess on an Infinite plane has six. Anti-King chess has eight. Three-check chess has a grand total of four sentences (based upon three sentences in the only reliable source). The rest simply says things like "It is catalogued in David Pritchard's The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants where it is noted as being of probable Soviet origin, and that Anatoly Karpov was an "invincible" player in his youth" which simply duplicates what is in the references section [1] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pritchard, D. B. (1994). The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. Games & Puzzles Publications. p. 304. ISBN 0-9524142-0-1. Probably of Soviet origin. The first player to deliver three checks wins. Said to be very skilful: two checks can be achieved fairly easily at the expense of piece sacrifices after which the prospects of a third check with severely weakened forces are close to zero. Karpov is said to have been invincible at the game in his youth.
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saiju Sreedharan[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are single line mentions. reddogsix (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:58, 20 July 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, but I am moving this to Draft:Susan Sobbott, on the outside chance that it can be further developed into something worthy of inclusion. I am also move-protecting the page to insure that it goes through proper vetting before being moved back. bd2412 T 20:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sobbott[edit]

Susan Sobbott (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)

Mid-level executive. It is very unusual for me or anyone to nominate for deletion a WP article sourced by a NYT article devoted to the subject. But the NYT piece is not a RS in this case--it's not even an interview--she wrote it about herself and it appears over her own signature.The Working Mother article is a more conventional promotional bio where she says what she wishes. Nothing else is substantial. The contributor is a spa, and wrote it as now required in draft space--but after accumulating the necessary number of edits on it, moved it themselves into mainspace. That's an abuse of procedure. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of plants of The Edge Chronicles[edit]

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

Fancruft. Zero indication from sources that either subject is a notable subject in and of itself. Better suited for Wikia or the like. Nothing worth a merge and redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More