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. Sandstein 10:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Buckley[edit]

Gavin Buckley (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)

Buckley is mayor of a city that neither by population nor other measures of importance gives the mayor default notability. The sourcing does not go deep enough to show Buckley to be notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, almost qualifying for WP:SK#3. Annapolis—the capitol of Maryland, and for a time of the U.S.—is undoubtedly a city of at least regional significance, making notability likely per WP:POLOUTCOMES. This is borne out by the existence of hundreds of reliable-source articles of the kind expected for the mayor of a good-sized city: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], etc. There are also plenty of RS, including in international media, about his role in the response to the recent Capital Gazette shooting: [9][10][11], etc.

Overall an obvious pass under WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NPOL, the fact that the article needs expansion notwithstanding. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : Subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – More than enough coverage from “Regional” - “National” and “International” Secondary – Independent and Reliable sources, as shown here [12]. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewing the small-city mayor when a notorious murder occurs is routine coverage. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Mayor of Annapolis is a pretty minor position as the state goes, and there's no real claim to notability beyond that. Coverage is routine and local. Mangoe (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absolutely meets NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a state capital as well as GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mayors of state capitals don't presumptively pass WP:NPOL, unless they receive significant press coverage, defined by: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. This actually serves to disqualify a lot of local coverage in the same way local coverage of a high school basketball player's coverage is disqualified, even if it were to pass WP:GNG, such as the Capital Gazette articles about him winning elections, et cetera, because this is the type of coverage that can be expected for every mayor in the entire country. The question then becomes, is Mr. Buckley special in terms of received coverage? He had a special interest story in Australian press because he's originally from Australia, and also in the Daily Mail: [13]. He was interviewed after a major tragedy in the town he's the mayor of, but the sources I've seen don't make him notable on his own, as it's not significant coverage of him, but rather the tragic event. He's slightly more notable than your average small town mayor since he's an Aussie mayor of an American town, but once you start looking at sources which significantly cover him, I don't think there are enough sources here to satisfy WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. State capitals do not get a special free exemption from having to reliably source their mayors well enough to clear WP:NPOL #2 — a mayor of Annapolis still has to clear exactly the same standards of notability and sourceability as any other mayor of any other city the size of Annapolis whether it's a state capital or not. But the amount of sourcing shown here, two newspaper articles and his own self-published campaign website, is not good enough to get him over the NPOL bar, and the article includes no genuinely noteworthy substance about his mayoralty beyond the fact of winning the election. This is simply not how you demonstrate that a mayor is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. A mayor's article lives or dies on the depth of substance and sourcing that can be shown to make the article good, not on the size of the city or its status or lack thereof as the capital of anything. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The profiles in the Sydney Morning Herald and PerthNow should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG (if not WP:NPOL) in combination with the articles in the Capital Gazette (even before the shooting). A quick scan of articles in the Gazette show coverage about rezoning proposal in the Colonial Historic District of Annapolis, and the election. --Enos733 (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I see plenty of coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As someone with a deep interest in all aspects of politics (as well as a professional background in the field), I struggle to understand the logic behind the deletion of mayors of American cities. The mayoral offices and their officeholders are essential to the understanding of state and regional politics. That aside, Buckley has coverage in national Australian and American news sources, as well as Maryland and regional sources, like the Capitol Gazette and the Baltimore Sun. His profile has only risen since the tragedy in Annapolis. Agree with the points already made by EDDY, Enos733, and others above. Scanlan (talk)

As valuable as Wikipedia articles about mayors can be, there isn't any value in giving every mayor an automatic free notability pass just because one or two sources can be shown to verify that they exist — in the United States alone, there are literally tens or even hundreds of thousands of places with mayors, with probably a few dozen mayors on average over the course of each place's history. And then multiply that by Canada, Australia, Germany, France, and every other country on earth where places also have mayors. Then consider that oftentimes nobody actually bothers to write or source anything more about the mayor than "he exists, he used to own a hardware store, he has three kids, the end", which is not a useful or informative article that's actually helping anybody understand anything important about local politics. And then consider that not every mayor of everywhere is even directly elected by the voters — in many places, "mayor" is a purely ceremonial title which rotates among the city councillors so that everybody gets to hold the title for a year and none of them actually has any executive power to control or influence the political agenda beyond merely chairing the council meeting. There is, in a nutshell, a lot of logic behind why mayors can't all be automatically presumed notable just because they exist — to be considered notable, a mayor needs to have a really well-sourced and substantive article which says a lot more than just "he exists". Bearcat (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this: almost all US state capitals are smaller cities or even what might pass for large towns in more populous areas, and Annapolis is no exception. Its main industries are tourism and bedrooms. Really, in Maryland the only city where the mayor's office is intrinsically important is Baltimore; there is the occasional mayor who does something notorious elsewhere, but this fellow is not that person, and the two stories from Australia are patent human interest pieces. In ten years, even Annapolitans are going to give you a blank look when you asked them what Gavin Buckley did; most of them aren't even going to be able to tell you he was mayor. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The goal is always to write a substantive article about a subject, more than "they exist." To me, that means something about a mayor's education and career before politics, some information about their election(s) and some discussion about their accomplishments or controversies in office (beyond ribbon cuttings and other routine events). I believe there is some presumption within WP:NPOL that Wikipedia should be a source of information about elected officials, whether in a list form (i.e. list of mayors) or as full articles because there is global encyclopedic value in knowing who represents us. Our line of who is notable for a stand-alone article is based (or should be based) on how complete an article can be written and how independent the sources are from the subject. There is a tendency to discount local sources because some papers merely republish press releases, or because many local sources cover routine events ("the mayor said this at last night's council meeting), and without looking at the individual articles, hit counts are deceiving for a local elected official. (Also, the less high-profile an individual is, there is a tendency for less attention to be paid to the upkeep and maintenance of the article) So, I say, the WP:10YT test is not applicable to any elected official. --Enos733 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable person. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Lepricavark (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. User:Jonnycraig888 () 05:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN plus significant coverage, Annapolis isn't some small boondock town either, it's a very significant city in itself being a state capital. Mayors of state capitals definetely deserve their own articles. I've found enough secondary coverage of Gavin to meet WP:GNG. JC7V-constructive zone 16:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've expanded the article significantly, relying in large part on two sources, profiles in the Capital Gazette and Sydney Morning Herald, that satisfy WP:NPOL #2's standard of being written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. 23:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of correctional facilities in comics[edit]

List of correctional facilities in comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Primary sourced (or just plain WP:OR) fancruft that fails WP:LISTN as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable as a group, nor suitably defined. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Consider merging referenced items to List of fictional prisons. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Roboto Project[edit]

Mr. Roboto Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a small co-op punk rock club in Pittsburgh. Nearly every city in America has such a place, often more than one. Very few of them are really notable. This article has been tagged as relying on primary sources (including “this one guy says this is what happened”) for nearly 10 years without the issue being fixed. Most coverage is routine and trivial, show listings and so forth (and a lot of false positive results related to the song by Styx). I don’t think this ever was a truly notable topic (having tagged it for proposed deletion shortly after it was created all that time ago) and the lack of more sources or other improvements in the very long time since then would seem to indicate the same. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC) see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. This venue and its co-operative way of operating may have had influence on venues in other cities, but I have not been able to verify this. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with nom; this is a small local rock club of the sort that exists in many a city, and gets modest mentions in whatever local alternative weekly press exists, which is why we have WP:CORPDEPTH. Whatever allegations of this outfit's impact in other areas there are, without reliable sources attesting to the same (from those other areas, that is), we can take no notice of the claim. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that this is re-opened following a flawed NAC, let me explicitly say that I fully agree with Nha Trang’s above comment, and feel that the added sources still fail CORPDEPTH per ROUTINE, and the fact that they were just tacked out without actually improving the article at all constitutes reference bombing and nothing else. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources don't even have to be added to an article to count toward WP:N, they just have to exist. I feel that part of your argument is flawed. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep [14] has a paragraph on the place as well as a picture. [15] appears to have a full chapter (not all viewable...). A search shows that it has 100s of mentions in local news. It's notable both by the Wikipedia definition of the word and the common English meaning. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources mentioned by Hobit, in particular, do seem to verify that this venue/organization is not merely a hangout of only local import, but holds significance to punk/DIY culture in general terms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets WP:GNG with sources that do have WP:CORPDEPTH ie. the books listed above by Hobit, it is also discussed in Underground: The Subterranean Culture of DIY Punk Shows. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eastmain, Hobit, Arxiloxos and Coolabahapple. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional martial arts[edit]

List of fictional martial arts (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)

Entirely original research, and the vast majority of blue linked articles have long since been merged for non-notability. Fails WP:LISTN. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. original research and contents are all of questionable notability.PRehse (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The vast majority is questionable and most likely not notable to find credible sources on. Gameinfirmary (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be original research and most, if not all, of the arts are of dubious notability. I fail to see how WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chutisant Kerdvibulvech[edit]

Chutisant Kerdvibulvech (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 academic, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Created by single-purpuse account WikiForCreate (talk · contribs), most likely self-promotion. bender235 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Search shows lack of significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Lists and tv shows and committee memberships are not significant awards or honors, conference committee membership is not elected membership or fellowship, he does not hold a named chair or highest leadership position at an institution or journal, and the academic record available in GS shows no outstanding impact on the field, so fails WP:ACADEMIC. Bakazaka (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The book source hardly seems reliable (couldn't find info about Enzed Publishing anywhere). He has been profiled by the Manager Daily newspaper though,[16] and has been interviewed by Thai PBS Radio.[17] Rather borderline for the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appearing on TV once, or even twice, does not equal notability. Deb (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Foreign policy of Donald Trump#Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deal of the Century (draft plan)[edit]

Deal of the Century (draft plan) (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)

per WP:NOTNEWS. There's not yet any specific public proposal, the various descriptions by different people may refer to different peace plans. I also dispute the accuracy of several claims in the article (Trump's plan wasn't intentionally named after a 1983 comedy). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a tough one. There is something behind this subject, right? And the fact that it seems to have a stupid name, and nobody seems to know precisely what it actually is, is just the way things work under Trump, right? But if there is genuine confusion as to whether everybody is even talking about the same "deal" then we have a real problem. So... Um... I'm thinking maybe demote it to a draft until more details become available? That way we don't lose the work already done. OTOH, if it can be firmed up to make it clear exactly what the thing actually is then that would make it a keep... ...Also, it needs bigly work on its clarity and grammar. Sad. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Power~enwiki: It is not common news or breaking news. You can read the news in other language in reliable presses. (if it is necessary, I can provide them). on other hands, it is the peace plan that receives criticism from famous political figures such as Palestinian leader [[Mahmoud Abbas]] , [[Jason Greenblatt]], [[Ali khamenei]] and some response of Saudi officials. If it was not a public peace plan, we would not receive International Interactions.Saff V. (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy (move to draft) per WP:TNT / very poor spinoff of Foreign policy of Donald Trump. The subject itself is notable - however the details of the "deal" are very cloudy and seems to shift through time and reporting outlet - basically the "deal of the century" is a code word for all Trump's policy initiatives regarding a Middle East plan during his tenure. The article as presently construed treats speculation as fact, relies in part on rather poor sources, and in other parts does not represent sources well. I am willing to change my !vote if the article is improved.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Modified !vote to draftify which is a better fit given this is a new article and my rationale being article quality. Struck and amended to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I nominated the article for [edit].Also there are several sources (CNN, BCC, aljazeera 1, aljazeera,telegraph.co.uk, nytimes, nbcnews) that help me to confirm or remove the speculation. So please give me more time to improve article! Saff V. (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Foreign policy of Donald Trump#Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is already some discussion in that section of a possible plan, and it is no less amorphous than the effort made in this article to squeeze blood from a stone by repetition and vague innuendo. bd2412 T 02:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per BD2412 Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Foreign policy of Donald Trump#Israel and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. At this point - there seems to be no concrete plan (rollout seems to have postponed again [18][19]) and details keep changing. The topic itself is really Trump's peace initiative issues in the Israel/Palestine arena. Keeping this in the foreign policy article until there is an actual plan makes sense as this article can not cover much beyond speculation (and reactions) to what is in the unpublished and changing plan.Icewhiz (talk) 05:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Hopkins[edit]

Tiffany Hopkins (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 BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, industry publicity materials, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO / WP:NACTOR. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. The award listed, "Best starlet", is not significant. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 01:02, 24 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 01:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no evidence of notbality, Hasnt won any notable/significent awards, Fails PORNBiO & GNG/. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not seeing any reliable sources coverage and the awards seem niche,so doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Management University[edit]

American Management University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An unaccredited university that hasn't been discussed anywhere other than its own webpage. Indistinguishable from a scam institution at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article on a start-up business. At best WP:TOOSOON: no evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tore André Sørås[edit]

Tore André Sørås (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)

Footballer who never played professionally, being relegated from a fully professional league and subsequently released before he had the chance to do so. Geschichte (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Lakisova[edit]

Masha Lakisova (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 17-year-old musician whose only claim of notability is winning junior-level competitions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete winners of competions for high schoolers are almost never notable. I have to wonder how many more of the 600 plus articles we have on people born in 2001 are on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I know junior athletes are almost never considered notable and it seems reasonable to view junior musicians in the same way. More importantly, there is a lack of significant independent coverage to show the GNG is met. The only sources appear to be competition results published by the competitions themselves.Sandals1 (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added some RS references to article. Does not need to pass WP:ARTIST if subject passes WP:GNG, but opinions may vary on significance of coverage in small regional papers. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - run of the mill, one of thousands of up and coming teenagers who play violins. She isn't in college, much in a major orchestra. When she becones Yuja Wang she can get an article, but until then, sorry. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:MUSICBIO--1l2l3k (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails the professional standards. May pass the WP:GNG but a minor. Better wait a bit with a WP article. gidonb (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Neal (author)[edit]

Chris O'Neal (author) (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 self-published author; local coverage of co-writing a book with his 5 year old daughter doesn't meet WP:GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete local coverage does not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Self-published author. I am unable to find substantial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NBIO Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Really a one event, putting his five-year-old daughter as a co-author. Ifnord (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Shaw (actor)[edit]

Russell Shaw (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable stage actor. The performances he has been in don't appear to be particularly prominent, and the references (apart from an industry-site bio) merely mention him as a cast member. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi stageshow[edit]

Punjabi stageshow (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)

Existed since 2009, has never had a single reference. There is no indication that this is a notably specific type of theater performance. LynxTufts (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' unsourced and reads like one person's opinion. I don't see any good redirect target; Theatre of India doesn't really discuss this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely unsourced. Tolly4bolly 02:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chris Woods (guitarist)#Educational publications. Sandstein 10:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Percussive Acoustic Guitar[edit]

Percussive Acoustic Guitar (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 music how to guide, does not meet WP:GNG. No secondary notability, almost all references primary. Two refs allegedly showing academic influence, but one is a bachelor's thesis and the other does not mention the book itself. Kges1901 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chris Woods (guitarist)#Educational publications. If there is any verifiable content, it can also be merged. Both articles are far too short and the main article could provide additional context.— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its my first article, and made sense as a direct reference for a lot of information around the percussive guitar subject, since there is so little and this is the most known. I do understand if it needs to be deleted or merged etc.Dinnerandbreakfast (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chris Woods (guitarist)#Educational publications. Not enough content or significance for a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Book fails WP:NBOOK so redirect seems the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inspectors Cup[edit]

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

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

A youth football competition excluded by WP:YOUNGATH. Local coverage, be it from 2018 [20] or 1916, isn't sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable youth tournament garnering only routine, local coverage. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A local youth competition, no matter how old, is very unlikely to meet notability standards. Moreover the fact the article twice identifies founders as 'possibly' being someone is hardly suitable for an encyclopedia. Dunarc (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Georgian–Seljuk wars. To allow a merger from history to the appropriate article(s). Sandstein 10:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian military campaigns over Armenian lands[edit]

Georgian military campaigns over Armenian lands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a combination of content that is either from or belongs in the Georgian–Seljuk wars and Georgian-Ayyubid wars articles. Has no complete sources or source that this is a topic on its own, failing WP:GNG. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Georgian-Ayyubid wars / Georgian–Seljuk wars (per date range of content). Some of the content is not duplicated - e.g. the 1206 campaign to take Kars (which is currently out of the bracket of the two prior articles - one ends at 1204, the other starts at 1207).Icewhiz (talk) 22:38, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lupicia[edit]

Lupicia (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 refs given here all lack independence from the subject. It looks like the only mentions of this company and its tea are with relation to it being marketed in association with some Studio Ghibli productions. Those mentions do not discuss the company in any depth. Could not find enough anywhere to justify an article at this point. A loose noose (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is quite a bit of info on this company available in Japanese, which I believe would be sufficient for this to pass WP:NCORP. The company's summary is here, stating that there are about 1300 employees. That makes it several times larger than, say, Argo Tea. There are a lot of hits that are not PR that come up in a Google News search, including hits from Nikkei Shimbun, SankeiBiz, Nikkei Style, several articles on collaboration with Nestlé, puff pieces in Vogue, Sankei Shimbun and Mainichi Shimbun.... Stopped looking after the first few pages. Dekimasuよ! 16:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find references that meet the criteria for notability either, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Royaards[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. Of the first 16 refs, 1 is name mention with the other 15 being about the bands he represents. No references exist to establish his bona fides. scope_creep (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is nothing more than spam. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this is spam for a non-notable person. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per above.∯WBG^converse 06:18, 31 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 10:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aiyas English School[edit]

Aiyas English 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)

Not clear how this primary school is notable. No sources either. I'm AFDing this instead of boldly redirecting because it has pictures so someone thought that would have made it notable? Also suggests it does secondary education (CBSE) so it is a primary? K-12? K-10? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) updated 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally couldn't find any sources. A in-depth reading of the article suggests that the school offers education up-till class 5. There is a mention of following the curriculum of CBSE but a search in CBSE's databases turns out to be negative. This means that the school has not got affiliation from CBSE and probably does not provide education above the 5th standard. Thus, Redirect to Karaikal — FR ⁺ 06:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per nom and FR.I guess sometime later, we will start redirecting kindergartens too.∯WBG^converse 09:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Deiros[edit]

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)

May not meet WP:ARTIST notability. A brief Google search brought up nothingNothing appeared on the first page of Google search (edited to clarify statement) and the references used seem to be just database. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Comment I had a had search with the search engines provided in the template above but nothing's coming up. The news search only brought up link to his LinkedIn. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:05, 30 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 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per my earlier nominations and per nom. Article with 2 sources, 1 is a directory. It is still not clear if he is dead or living, which says a lot about available sources.  » Shadowowl | talk 17:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A brief google search is a contradiction of WP:BEFORE, at least do a full search before nominating, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well nothing relevant appeared on the first page of the search. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 18:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I also can't find significant coverage or a claim of notability, or reliably verify anything in the article. Unusually, IMDb has no entry for him at all. The only Pampa Award I can find is an Indian literary award established after Deirós' win, so I can't verify that he won this or establish that it would be notable if he did. The surviving online reference gives only one credit. I can't find a second, reliable source that lists him in the credits. The YouTube video that used to be referenced don't mention him by name, so I don't know if he's in them. They wouldn't be proof of notability anyway, but might suggest more searches to try. Mortee (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of everyone who ever appeared in a film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per NACTOR, person does not have multiple, occurring, significant roles in film or TV. Valeince (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Failure of WP:NACTOR: no multiple and significant roles. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral The entire biography part was deleted just before nomination. You can’t delete a large part of the articles and one day later deliberate proposes for deletion. Articles are modified to be improved, because if this is the case, you could simply erase the whole article but it is vandalism.Veronicaverovero1 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — Veronicaverovero1 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
• Delete. It actually looks like a hoax. es:Especial:PermaLink/107461448 gives this primary source with a birth year of 1973 and the full name Deiros Diego Martin (or Diego Martin Deiros). I find as little when searching for the alleged full name as just Martin Deiros or Deiros Martin. A birth year of 1973 would make him ~2 years at the time La Hora de María y el pájaro de oro was released. So he was ... 18 month during production? Not impossible, but the only source we have is http://www.cinenacional.com/persona/martin-deiros and it is not reliable. I can find no other source that is not a mirror of Wikipedia that mentions him. It is claimed that Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) mentions Deiros on page 291. I do not have the book, but a relative of mine reports that Deiros is not mentioned on page 291, and is not listed in the index. Un diccionario de films argentinos (1930-1995) is not available for preview via Google Books. Deiros should have won the award "Premio Pampa" as best actor for his television work in 1979, age ~6. I can't find any "Premio Pampa" related to TV/cinema, let alone any mention of Deiros and "Premio Pampa". The rest of the claims are unverifiable as well, and the Youtube videos appear to be false fillers, I don't see a young kid that could possibly be Deiros. All in all this stinks, and is at best a WP:DEL7 case. Sam Sailor 21:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree. Deb (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reyna I. Aburto[edit]

Reyna I. Aburto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources consists of name checks. The mostly primary sourcing available in searches and in the article does not serve to establish notability, and much of that only consists of name checks and passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. I think, in time, there may be more significant coverage, but right now I don't think there is enough to satisfy the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 17:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep We have three sources from papers in 3 different reporting regions that mention Aburto that are totally independent of her. This alone passes GNG. Also she is one of the 3 leaders of a major organization. If that is not enough there is this https://utahvalley360.com/2018/07/19/sister-aburto-shares-story-of-tragedy-hope-and-conversion-to-lds-church-in-video-series/ 4th source from a 4th urban area that is discussing Aburto in another context. There are clearly enough sources to justify having this article. Then here https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/06/05/im-just-average-says-new-mormon-womens-leader-but-god-can-make-the-ordinary-extraordinary/ is another SL Tribune article speaking of her. There are clearly enough sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The sources listed in the !vote directly above do not qualify the subject as meeting WP:BASIC at all.

• [21] is a primary source consisting mostly of an interview. Primary sources consisting mostly of interviews do not establish notability.
• [22] is a short article that consists of two passing name-check mentions about the subject.

Not even near meeting WP:BASIC per these sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are not adequate for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Keep in mind that WP:GNG can be satisfied by sources that exist, not just sources that happen to be online and already used in the article to support a particular citation. Instead of arguing over each LDS General Authority, however, it might be useful to have a cutoff above which they're presumed notable; and I think member of the General Relief Society presidency would be above a reasonable cutoff. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DavidLeeLambert: What kinds of offline sources do you think would exist on this particular person? I can only imagine publications by the LDS, but I don't have an intuition of what kinds of independent secondary sourcing would exist on her in this position. Perhaps newspapers that don't have an online presence, or magazines that don't have all their articles online maybe? I agree that the position seems important, but given the kind of coverage online I have a hard time coming up with sources that wouldn't just be more routine coverage. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 02:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment neither source I gave above was a primary source. The first was a clerly secondary report on the publication of interviews with Aburto. The source itself is not the interviews. The source is a secondary source about the interviews. The second is a fully indepdent article that does a lot more than name check. It was built around the actions of the Relief Soceity General Presidency on the grounds that there actions are inherently notable. Aburto is seen as so notable in some circles that we have this [23] Deseret News article entirely devoted to reporting a talk by her. I think a reasonable agreement would be that anyone who has given a talk in LDS general conference is notable. This [24] article in the totally indepdent of Aburto Exponent II shows that this talk was widely impactful. A lot of this seems to be driven by a refusal to recognize well researched articles in the LDS Church News and the Ensign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There seems to be a difference of opinion over the interpretation of WP:BIASED. Sources affiliated with religious organizations, or declaring a religious commitment, can sometimes be the most rigorously researched and vetted by writers and publishers, and therefore may be among the most reliable for religion-specific information. But notability within a religious context does not necessarily map onto Wikipedia notability. Adding unaffiliated sources helps establish general notability for the subject in addition to notability within the religious context. In this case, the concern seems to be that LDS-owned newspapers and magazines, or blogs with explicit religious commitments, may well choose to cover a subject based on religious affiliation, and therefore only support one point of view on the subject. But that concern is easy to address as long as the subject is generally notable, since other sources will be out there to widen the range of perspectives. Bakazaka (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have rpovided sources from newspapwers in Salt Lake City, Ogden and St. Geroge that are not at all LDS owned. So the claim that Aburto is only covered in LDS linked sources is not born out by the provided sources. The Utah 360 link is to a source that seeks to cover the generally notable facts to residents of Utah County, it is not a religion-related source. Exponent II may be LDS culture linked, but it is not linked to the LDS Church, and to ban sources because they are related to LDS culture would create a bad precedent in lots of ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 31 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 withdraw / Procedural keep. A deletion review had already been opened by the norminator of the first AFD User:Shadowowl (non-admin closure) Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale[edit]

Education Not for Sale (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 feel that the previous two AFDs were improperly closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale was closed as keep with just one "keep" vote and the second Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (2nd nomination) was speedy kept despite the norminator having objections with the first AFD.

In addition, I have concerns with the references used. For example https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf is a primary source written by the campaigner himself. The other two references https://web.archive.org/web/20070829054050/http://www.srcf.ucam.org/camens/ and https://archive.is/20061008073452/http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/sofiebuckland/#selection-463.51-463.113 are also primary sources and look to be blogs. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similiar AFD to this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Free Education --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 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 15:44, 30 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 15:44, 30 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 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the nominator. Sourcing is non-existent; the Guardian article doesn't help since it's a blog post of a primary character. There's hits like this one, with a single mention of the local news variety--but that's it. Delete. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete like the other mentioned page, not a WP article at all, but abuse of our project for WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) strike per below. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Renominating for deletion within a few days of a keep close is an abuse of deletion process. The nom. attempted to do this the very next day, and I closed it as speedy keep on that basis; now it has immediate been renominated once more a day or two later. I'm not going to close it again myself,although I am convinced that such would be the proper course. One can of course renominate immediately after a no-consensus, though it usually gives better results to wait a week or two in hope of attracting other comments. One can & should certainly renominate immediately for an absolutely essential reason such as copyvio or blp violation. The alternative when the question is just notability is to wait a while. there is no fixed standard, but from prior discussions, the usually suggested time is a month. (this is not a comment on whether I think the article should actually be kept or deleted) DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Tyw7 when DGG closed the 2nd nomimation he pointed you to WP:Deletion review. Please explain what is unclear to you about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I gave a different reason to the first two, so technically this is a different AFD. I checked for third party sources unlike the first reviewer. And as DGG said the first there is no fixed standard over the length of time between nominations.

Secondly the first AFD was a split vote and should have been re listed, not closed as there isn't any consensus ie 1-1. If you want to go to deletion review, fine. But I think we should let this second AFD run its course. Also, I'm not involved in the first two review and to my understanding deletion review is more of an appeal by the norminator. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG was correct. The correct thing for you to do would have been to follow the deletion review process, the first step of which would be to ask the closer to reverse and if that fails to bring it to the community. I believe that process would be successful. This should be closed as the 2nd one was. This is not just BURO; we have processes for good reason. Please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is already a delete vote... I thought if an AFD has votes it should not be closed --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and you need to go read the policies about deletion. I am about an inch from requesting a TBAN on you nominating pages for deletion. Again please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep: too soon after the previous nomination; WP:Deletion review is available. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, out of process, too soon after AfD1 and AfD2, not OK why the DRV is open. Impose 2 month moratorium before the next AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep, wrong forum and too soon after previous close. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 31 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 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Free Education[edit]

Campaign for Free Education (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 organization may fail WP:ORG. The article has no references and I can't find secondary sources talking about the organization. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Similiar AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (4th nomination) --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:03, 30 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 15:39, 30 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 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:39, 30 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 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As with its alleged successor, there simply isn't enough secondary sourcing here (I can't find any at all)--and the article reads like an essay/school project. Delete. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this hijacked page is the definition of WP:SOAP. It is not a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've found a few trivial references (i.e. referring to a quote as being from a member of this group) but nothing to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ade Adefalujo[edit]

Ade Adefalujo (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. reddogsix (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria -related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - utterly run of the mill person, which although allegedly notable, its not even close. There are zero reliable sources. In fact, it is not possible to verify this person's existence. I suspect it's the subject's attempt to write their own resume or LinkedIn page as as Wikipedia artilce. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to In the Lonely Hour. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lonely Hour Tour[edit]

In the Lonely Hour Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of concerts and a set list fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage only. --woodensuperman 14:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into In the Lonely Hour. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NTOUR. No significant coverage from reliable sources. I only see routine coverage and passing mentions, and I'm unable to find in-depth reviews of this tour. The lead paragraph of this article should be merged into a new "Tour" section in the In the Lonely Hour article. — Newslinger talk 18:01, 30 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 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genesi[edit]

Genesi (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)

All of the references here are problematic: none of them are to actual news or other reputable published sources. I did a Google search and even when I tried to add something to distinguish this "Genesi" from the other thousand uses of the word (see https://www.google.com/search?num=40&safe=off&tbm=bks&ei=GTJMW_TmKISc0gKS7LP4Ag&q=%22genesi%22+%22arm+architecture%22&oq=%22genesi%22+%22arm+architecture%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...6408.6408.0.8086.1.1.0.0.0.0.113.113.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.wnnYmNalTdA) I did't come up with what looked like enough to actually deserve an article here. A loose noose (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 13:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 13:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There appears to be sufficient intellectually independent references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Note that "BPlan" is redirected to here and this book has a description of BPlan GmbH. Likewise, this book also has a good description. There are also several articles which just about get over the line for intellectual independent such as this from The Inquirer and this from an online magazine. Perhaps (a suggestion) the article should be renamed to "BPlan GmbH". HighKing⁺⁺ 12:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Summer Tour[edit]

2012 Summer Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NTOUR. Just routine coverage. --woodensuperman 13:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NTOUR. No significant coverage from reliable sources, just routine coverage. Reviews of the artists' concerts during this tour focus on the artists, and make no mention of the tour's name. Since it's a co-headlining tour, there's no suitable redirect target. — Newslinger talk 18:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with article on Kelly Clarkson. Vorbee (talk) 07:59, 31 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Shestakov[edit]

Oleg Shestakov (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 in this article that he meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC, in that he or his work must be significantly discussed in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing works about him, just what he's written. His activities seem to be par for the course for a professor, but not notable by Wikipedia criteria. ... discospinster _talk 13:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The scientific significance of Oleg Shestakov is confirmed by a large number of scientific works (90 articles, 8 books, 27 reports at conferences) listed here end here. Smallhedgehog (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Indicators of quoting of scientific works of Oleg Shestakov: h-index=7. It should be taken into account that, unfortunately, for mathematicians this indicator is insufficient. Smallhedgehog (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Number of citations of Oleg Shestakov's articles in scientific journals according to the Web of Science: 38, Scopus: 3. Smallhedgehog (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the article, and my searches produced virtually nothing of any value. As for the attempt by Smallhedgehog (the creator of the article) to provide evidence of notability, the kinds of statistics provided, such as 90 articles and 38 citations, is par for the course for a very run of the mill academic. (And fewer than one citation for each two papers published certainly does not suggest a great deal of prominence in his field.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Russian Mathematic School (in particular, mathematicians of the Moscow State University) has a high status in the global mathematical community. The status of Doctor of physical and mathematical sciences is the highest academic degree in Russia. It is about recognizing whether such a degree is a sufficient criterion of significance for placing a translation of an article approved in a Russian-language Wikipedia for an English-language Wikipedia. Smallhedgehog (talk) 06:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as that goes, the answer is perfectly simple. Having any kind of degree does not constitute notability under English Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether it does or not on Russian Wikipedia I neither know nor care, as that is irrelevant. (Also, if the article you created is a translation of a Russian Wikipedia article then you should have said when you created it, as not doing so makes it a copyright infringement. Please make an edit stating in the edit summary where you copied it from, to resolve that problem.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neither his relatively low citation counts (not unusual in mathematics) nor his association with Moscow State give him a pass of WP:PROF, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. MathSciNet indexes almost everything under the sun published in mathematics, in all languages. However, it lists only 27 publications by the subject (with the grand total of 4 citations), while the WP article says that he has over 80 publications. This suggests that the bulk of his work has been published in really obscure journals, and, in any case, the citability here is extremely low. Neither having a position at the Moscow State University nor having the Russian version of the habilitation degree establish academic notability. Fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Shishkin (mathematician)[edit]

Alexey Shishkin (mathematician) (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 in this article that he meets the criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC, in that he or his work must be significantly discussed in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing works about him, just what he's written. His activities seem to be par for the course for a professor, but not notable by Wikipedia criteria. ... discospinster _talk 13:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The scientific significance of Alexei Shishkin is confirmed by a large number of scientific works (138 articles, 5 books, 38 reports at conferences), listed here. Number of citations of articles in scientific journals according to the Web of Science: 12, Scopus: 24. Smallhedgehog (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines in the article, and my searches produced virtually nothing of any value. As for the attempt by Smallhedgehog (the creator of the article) to provide evidence of notability, 24 citations for an academic with a career spanning more than 30 years does not suggest a great deal of prominence, and a rate of citations of about one for every six papers published suggests the contrary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The Russian Mathematic School (in particular, mathematicians of the Moscow State University) has a high status in the global mathematical community. The status of Doctor of physical and mathematical sciences is the highest academic degree in Russia. It is about recognizing whether such a degree is a sufficient criterion of significance for placing a translation of an article approved in a Russian-language Wikipedia for an English-language Wikipedia. Smallhedgehog (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as that goes, the answer is perfectly simple. Having any kind of degree does not constitute notability under English Wikipedia's guidelines. Whether it does or not on Russian Wikipedia I neither know nor care, as that is irrelevant. (Also, if the article you created is a translation of a Russian Wikipedia article then you should have said when you created it, as not doing so makes it a copyright infringement. Please make an edit stating in the edit summary where you copied it from, to resolve that problem.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's almost nothing by or citing him in Google scholar (presumably because of the language barrier) and his association with Moscow State does not contribute towards notability. Our article says he is the author of five books and if we could dig up multiple in-depth published book reviews of them we could make a case for WP:AUTHOR. But as it is we have no evidence for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, basically per David Eppstein. Citability is very low and nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF. MathSciNet, which usually indexes almost everything, only lists 7 articles by the subject, with 0 citations. This suggests that most of his publications were in rather obscure venues. Having a Russian habilitation degree or having a position at the MSU does not constitute academic notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tishnagi[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has full independent reviews in reliable sources including The Times of India shown here and Eenadu shown here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, reviews by newspapers nowhere support either GNG or NFILM which required full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics not newspapers. This is your own invention and you must seek consensus on this before !voting in AfDs. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • You received clarification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Newspaper reviews here that nationally published independent full film reviews count for both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. If a film critic writes in a national newspaper then he is nationally known, not because he has payed his fees to join a critics association or because an editor doesn't rate him, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above. User:GSS any reply to this ? --DBigXray 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has some references from Times of India shown here,Box Office India shown here,Bollywood Hungama shown here,NDTV shown here,Deccan Herald shown here And Hindustan (newspaper) shown here,which is reliable source. thanks Jolly gupta (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I thought this would be a straight keep, but most of the reviews above are more interviews etc. However ETimes Review and Eenadu Review (Beware, the translation is...interesting) satisfy the requirements in my view. Atlantic306 is correct as per newspaper reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with User:Nosebagbear based on my review of the references above and in the article. passess WP:NFILMS per 2 notable actors and coverage in media. User:GSS Can you write a table comment rebutting the refs. I will be willing to reconsider the vote. --DBigXray 10:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: The soruces mentioned above and in the article are mostly about the actor Rajpal Yadav not about the film except the two reviews which is way to far from establishing notability in my views. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi GSS, I claim notability per WP:NFILM, 2 notable actors and these sources which are 3 major newspapers in India [25] [26][27] --DBigXray 12:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Satyahari Mondal[edit]

Satyahari Mondal (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 actor lacking in-depth, non-trivial sources. reddogsix (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and WP:TOOSOON also please note the the author has been blokced as a sockpuppet of user Satyaharimondal. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:35, 30 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. There is a clear consensus and the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Moskowitz[edit]

Miriam Moskowitz (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 am not sure that she was notable enough to grant an independent article Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her notability is still in doubt. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some sources to the article. She was of the minor Atomic spies in the 1950s (she was convicted alongside of her romantic/business partner - receiving 2 years to his seven), and the friend of Ethel Rosenberg - there is some enduring coverage of that in terms of book coverage that might have been sufficient for notability in and of itself. On top of that, as one of the longest living atomic spies, she's received more press coverage (national / international level) in 2010 around her book release (the book, an autobiography, would pass NBOOK but the subject is probably a better article than the autobio) received significant coverage. In 2014, she received another bout of wide coverage for her attempt to overturn (unsuccessfully) the 1950 conviction. She's been covered a few additional times as well. All and all - there is quite a bit of in-depth coverage of this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is shown by Icewhiz's improvements. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination appears to be another example of our endemic PRESENTISM. Moskowitz drew WP:SIGCOV nationally back in her day, and has been a subject of the rivers of ink spilled over McCarthyism and American Communists (yes, she was a card-carrying member) ever since. Note, for example, this headline from a 2014 Moskowitz profile article, part of a 2014 Moskowitz news cycle: Still guilty after all these years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article demonstrated notability prior to the expansion of the article and this appears to be another WP:BEFORE issue. Thanks to all of those involved in the creation and expansion of this article, particularly after the nomination for deletion. As it stands now, there is no doubt about notability based on the ample reliable and verifiable sources about her over the span of several decades. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please see the revised article regarding notability and, in particular, the connection of Moskowitz's conviction to the Rosenberg trial.Guroed (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• After Icewhiz improvements, I withdraw my nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 31 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 Rio Rancho, New Mexico#Schools. Sandstein 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Middle School (Rio Rancho)[edit]

Mountain View Middle School (Rio Rancho) (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 article on a middle school fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG Wolfson5 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I added some references (a gun threat, a school administration over-reacting to a walkout over safety, a favorable statement by a politician), but that's probably not enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Rio Rancho, New Mexico if the stuff about safety is WP:NOTNEWS crime blotter stuff. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:47, 30 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt White (ice hockey)[edit]

Matt White (ice hockey) (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 is an ice hockey player. He has played for Milwaukee Admirals under American Hockey League and Augsburger Panther under Deutsche Eishockey Liga (DEL) of total 174 games which lack another 26 games to meet 200 games as per WP:NHOCKEY criteria #2 . Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Career third-line minor leaguer, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete still as non-notable as when this article was last deleted two years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Fails to meet the GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fraz Wahlah[edit]

Fraz Wahlah (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 significant about him, non-notable bio. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 11:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan -related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 11:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as either a lawyer nor as a political activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ObjectiF[edit]

ObjectiF (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 understand that this is a CASE tool for model-driven engineering. Where is the discussion of it in multiple reliable published sources? Not here! A loose noose (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, likely WP:PROMO. No sources found while checking that was not a press release or promotional (presumably COI) comments. Several minor mentions. The "articles" mentioned in the ObjectiF#Articles (in German only) may be possible sources The first appears to originate from their blog. Noting that the main editor, User:Toolforpm appears to be a single purpose account with a CoI, I think it's unlikely that multiple acceptable sources exist— Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Comte0 (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:PROMO. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Thrill of It All (Sam Smith album). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Thrill of It All Tour[edit]

The Thrill of It All Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of concerts fails WP:NTOUR. Routine coverage only. --woodensuperman 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to The Thrill of It All (Sam Smith album). List of shows is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Any media notice of particularly notable individual shows can be added to the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect Valid article with notability. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge mercifully into the album since subject on its own fails notability criterion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo: Man of a Thousand Faces[edit]

Hugo: Man of a Thousand Faces (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 product ; can be mentioned at Kenner Products. » Shadowowl | talk 10:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks reliable sources, only blogs, memorabilia and toy listing sites found. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 09:23, 30 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 Raphael Nadal. Selective merge; only include material that is adequately sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Rafael Nadal tennis season[edit]

2001 Rafael Nadal tennis season (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)

Contested PROD (though the 2002, 2003 and 2004 PRODS I placed are still active). Non-notable season, fails WP:NSEASONS, and none of the "achievements" here come close to passing WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 22:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I (power~enwiki (π, ν)) am bundling these other PROD-ed articles on the early career of Rafael Nadal, as the same argument for deletion applies:

2002 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2003 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2004 Rafael Nadal tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete - Not even close to a notable season. Fails prject Tennis Guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all of these to an article on the early life/career of Rafael Nadal. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Comment I'm going to object to the other PRODs and bundle them with this AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom comment As I was the one who PRODded the 3 articles added to this AFD, I obviously support deletion of all 3. I don't see how there is anything worth saving by merging instead. Iffy★Chat -- 07:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Rafael Nadal - this article up for deletion is headed by a note saying Main Article - Rafael Nadal, suggesting the article might be better merged there. Vorbee (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into "Raphael Nadal" any text that shall survive the necessary pruning of unsourced material, of which there is a-plenty in these articles. They are full of original work and weaselly wording. We go by sources and sources they have not. Very little can be saved and it should be merged. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Cultural Action Foundation[edit]