< 7 November 9 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss PMR[edit]

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

unsourced, and there is no evidence of notability -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Already speedily deleted by Nick (G3: Blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morganville bagworms[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. None of the references support the existence of these bagworms, and Google doesn't seem to know they exist, either. Fails WP:V. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriation (music)[edit]

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

Just a complete mess. Normal criteria would suggest there's an article in there somewhere, but wouldn't it be better just to start again? Mcewan (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Architects (American band)[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to meet notability criteria. --MASHAUNIX 19:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, they're all reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Let's see: Allmusic, an established reliable source, Alternative Press, a magazine established for over 30 years, Deseret News, Summit Daily, The Trentonian, The Pitch, and Tucson Weekly - newspapers are generally accepted as reliable sources. And why would this article be here to promote a band that split up 14 years ago? --Michig (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northstar / U.S. Metal (band)[edit]

Northstar / U.S. Metal (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly referenced and advertorially toned article about a band, whose only evident claim of notability is that one member went on to become notable for other work later on -- but even his actual notability is in question per comments below, and that wouldn't be an article-clinching notability claim anyway, as WP:NMUSIC #6 requires two independently notable members, not just one. But there's literally nothing else here that passes NMUSIC at all ("the 2nd demo is currently floating around in the internet" is actually the closest it gets to any other NMUSIC criterion) -- and there are no reliable sources supporting any of the content. Rather, the referencing here depends entirely on unreliable fansites and WordPress blogs and user-generated discussion forums and discogs.com entries and Facebook posts, with no evidence of coverage in even one reliable or notability-supporting media outlet. As always, every band is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because they existed -- they need to have a notability claim that passes NMUSIC and reliable source coverage about them in media to support it, but nothing here passes either part of that equation at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shootings by dogs in the United States[edit]

List of shootings by dogs in the United States (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 kind of an interesting topic but seems to fail WP:LISTN cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for considering it! The topic of the article is a constant presence in the news, and similar lists are published often. Note the first link, from the Washington Post:

Carbel84 (talkcontribs) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this 🙄 This is such a one off thing that it can’t even warrant an encyclopedic article. I tried to find sources and it overwhelming talks about dogs being shot. Washington Post is not enough.Trillfendi (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, this is actually surprisingly common. I’m still adding instances but this is more common in the US than shark attacks, which has a list of its own. -Carbel84

@Carbel84: that's because shark attacks are an enduring cultural phenomenon. Books and movies have been written about them. Just because something exists doesn't mean it meets our criteria for notability. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~. Thank you. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 00:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the topic appears prima facie absurd, but this is an event which occurs very regularly. There are at least 20 more incidents in the 21st century I haven't yet added. Wikipedia has, for example, a list of fatal and non-fatal wolf attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wolf_attacks), and a list of fatal and non-fatal bird attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_attack#Birds), both of which are -less common- than the phenomenon in this list. I'm not working from spurious lists like Cracked.com, as the citations in the article so far should make clear- just pointing out that there is a cultural interest in this.Carbel84 (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC) And sorry, one thing I would like to stress here: The common thread in most of these incidents is a hunter who set his gun down on the ground, in a boat, or somewhere else a dog could reach it. If this list makes it plain that this is not an isolated freak occurrence, then just maybe one hunter will take pains to better secure their firearm and this list will have done a service matched by few topics on this site.Carbel84 (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Burghart[edit]

Edith Burghart (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 believe this is a hoax. Clues include:

a) Google has apparently never heard of Edith Burghart

b) the image is supposed to date back to 1848 but it is way too clean, it shows her writing on what looks like a pretty modern notebook and Commons' metadata shows that the image was taken with an iPhone X (not many of these were around in 1848)

c) despite the claim made in the article, she does not appear in List of Drunk History episodes

d) the whole story makes no sense whatsoever : mid 19th-century secretary (secretaries were actually pretty rare in pre-typewriter days) convinces two well-established journalists to found a new newspaper based on her vision.

e) The fifth reference is to her published journals. Worldcat has never heard of this book supposedly published in 2017. Pichpich (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Nayyar[edit]

Rohit Nayyar (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 actor who hasnt won any awards; did not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. And failing rest of the notability guidelines for actors.

The actor also does not pass general notability criteria, as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Whatever coverage there is, is from non reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Fischer[edit]

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

No independent sources to show notability. oes not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Her web site, linkedin and twitter are not enough. Nothing found in a before search and it looks like the books that are claimed to have been published never were. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If someone actually wishes to hang on to this in draft space, I would be happy to provide a copy. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Naydin[edit]

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

The subject of the article only participated in youth competitions and thus fails WP:NSPORT. I do not see any significant coverage which would make him to pass WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We might draftify in case he competes in the next Olympics or becomes notable earlier according to WP:NSPORT.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Your Love (Flamingos song)[edit]

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

I think that this page is actually advertising for a current non-notable recording artist. Full of superlatives, uncited big claims etc etc. I don't think that the song itself warrants an article as there seems to be nothing else notable about it. Layne Stalin (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Anne's Episcopal Church (De Pere, Wisconsin)[edit]

St Anne's Episcopal Church (De Pere, Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source noted at the bottom of the page is one published by the overseeing religious authority. Nothing about the church's history is notable, many local churches move locations and have a rotation of non-notable clergy serving. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Townley[edit]

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

article that fails WP:NARTIST and GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep. there is a lot of coverage, some of which is minimally OK:
  1. Telegraph: Lincoln Townley: 'I was rejected 93 times, but now I've created my own art world'
  2. The Express: The ex-addict who's been called the next Andy Warhol
  3. Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Lincoln Townley: 'The next Andy Warhol' holds first Australian exhibition
  4. Manchester Evening News: Lincoln Townley displays dramatic art showcasing drink turmoil before sobriety with wife Denise Welch.
That seems like plenty enough coverage for GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actualyl had to scrape quite deep to find those sources. I would AGF of the nominator on this one, as there is an enormous amount of bad sourcing out there that talks about Townley in a cursory way either as the husband of someone famous or as a millionaire playboy. We're all volunteers here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America1000 17:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Townley[edit]

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

No real indication of notability on page of a publicist. He seems to be best known as husband of his more famous wife, but notability isn't inherited. Sources on page are trivial, or not independent of the subject, except for one article in the Manchester Evening News, a local paper. I don't think that's enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio stations in the United Kingdom[edit]

List of radio stations in the United Kingdom (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 single in-line reference, many clearly not notable (hospital and racecourse stations?), unsourced junk list basically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. As per WP:WITHDRAW (non-admin closure) Dom from Paris (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Kim[edit]

Viktor Kim (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 the very leniant WP:NCURL criteria and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's "main person and father-founder of Kazakhstani curling", member of Kazakhstan Olympic commitee. His player (and coach) record exists in database of World Curling Federation, because he played/coached many times on international championships level. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Also WP:G5 candidate. See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivan Disouza. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Y.D.G. Films[edit]

Y.D.G. Films (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 company which doesn't have significant coverage at all. There are a few sources, but borderline reliable, that mention the company passingly. But notability is not inherited. In short, the company fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and WP:GNG.

This article has a history of socking. Just like the other articles related to the founder of this company. Other articles were based on blatant lies, like a movie winning an award which wasnt even started yet, another movie claiming to be screened at Toronto film festival when it wasn't. Detailed information, and proofs to the claims can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratisaad - The Response.

In any case, this article fails the notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Montgomery Lessig[edit]

Brooke Montgomery Lessig (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:MILPERSON, not other claim of notability. MB 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus about whether this topic is redundant to Entomophagy. Editors can still try to find consensus about how to cover these topics on the talk page(s). Sandstein 10:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insects as food[edit]

Insects as food (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)

Procedural nomination of a declined CSD A10 (duplicate article). I'm not myself quite seeing the distinction between the two topics (entomophagy is the other one), but its creator is strongly defending it, so it probably needs a wider discussion here. SpinningSpark 22:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! One is about edible insects as food items. The other about the process of eating these edible insects in a cultural framework (ethical issues, taboo in Western cultures etc.). To write about both topics in one article would be like writing about the nutritional value of soy beans in the article veganism. --AlienFood (talk) 05:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there is in fact a large and detailed Vegan diet § Nutrients subsection in veganism, including a full paragraph and then some on the nutritional aspects of soy protein, as well as a Veganism#Soy subsection. Wikipedia articles often have this kind of wide-ranging mix of perspectives from different fields on important concepts. FourViolas (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a culture-related article, the second is an article based on nutritional science, food production and food law. For the first article you would search for scientific literature in the area of cultural studies, psychology, anthropology. For the latter you would search for scientific literature in the area of nutritional and food science, food technology, agricultural technology, etc.

To develop the whole topic under an article focused on the culture and process of eating insects is just misleading. We need a second article Insects as food (with Edible insects redirecting to it), just describing the food aspects (nutritional profile, farming/production, authorization). This article should stay, both have to be developed seperated from another. AlienFood (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Insects as food' also describes the consumption of insects by non-humans. Unless food means something only eaten by humans, which leaves me wondering what the manufacturers of 'cat food' think they are doing. Its an interesting point that "entomophagy"

is not on the OED; is it in Websters or Collins??. This makes me think that the proper article title is Insects as human food or similar and that both "entomophagy" and "Insects as food should redirect to thisTheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in the OED online, but it is in Oxford Dictionaries elsewhere, and also in Collins and Merriam-Webster, see here. It gets a lot of hits on scholar, and on gbooks so despite the strange omission from the OED it does not seem to be a rarely used neoligism (the earliest use I saw was 1988). SpinningSpark 14:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The terms dog food and cat food are definitely exceptions, as both are considered very close to humans. In all other cases you would speak of feed. By the way, Insects as feed is a big, big topic currently discussed, definitely also interesting for an encyclopedia, there are masses of literature on that AlienFood (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do that quick search on the term edible insects too. This might be the right lemma for this article after all. AlienFood (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the N-gram for those terms. SpinningSpark 17:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer N-gram with more smoothing. SpinningSpark 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Seeing this, I would suggest we keep the article, but put it under the lemma Edible insects and redirect Insects as food to it. Entomophagy can stay seperately with it's focus on societal and cultural aspects (cultural tradition, cuisine, taboo/prohibition). --AlienFood (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classical argumentum ad hominem. Please stay factual and add to the discussion. --AlienFood (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subpages cannot be created in mainspace by policy and technical limitation. SpinningSpark 11:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 13:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Importantly, it's not clear for any of these whether the "right" place to put them is in a "what & how" article or a "whether & why" article. Rather, it seems like the best way to give readers complete information with full background is to make a large article with clearly labeled sections that separate cultural and practical issues when possible. FourViolas (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for highlighting these three areas with some minor overlaps/duplicate elements. From my point of view, parts of these three sections should be transferred from Entomophagy to the article Insects as food where they belong. Links could be set, if necessary. --AlienFood (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CoinJoin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability - two RSes (Wired, one event in Yahoo!), two other third-party sources that aren't accepted as evidence of notability (Coindesk), the rest is entirely primary. Has apparently been this way for years now - hasn't improved in that time. WP:BEFORE shows negligible coverage outside bitcoin blogs, many of which are pay-for-play outlets. Would be a WP:TOOSOON except it's been around for years like this David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CoinJoin isn't a company - it's a method or technique for anonymizing cryptocurrency transactions. Caseeno (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caseeno (talk · contribs) - please sign your !vote
  • Please don't remove the deletion notice on the article
  • Yahoo Finance just reprinted the CCN article, they didn't write it.
  • So the MIT Technology Review, 14 months ago, says the technique does not work. Why does this indicate notability? We can't cover every technology flop - there are billions of them!
  • I'll note that you're a newbie here (1 week!), so might be excused for not knowing our rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The MIT piece doesn't say CoinJoin doesn't work. It just describes a limitation with respect to multiple CoinJoins from the same wallet. In any case, I don't think success or failure is what determines notability. There are plenty of online articles that discuss CoinJoin in some detail, for example this academic review is quite detailed: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/3/2/127/4057584 Caseeno (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being a bad article for years is a reason to delete, not keep - it's evidence it lacks the capacity to improve, and that just keeping it won't do anything - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Matrix & Futurebound. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebound[edit]

Futurebound (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 DJ. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO due to the lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 11:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to In the Middle of the City. No prejudice against recreating this as a stand-alone article if better sourcing can be found which firmly establishes that this meets WP:GNG and/or WP:TVSERIES. It sounds like any such sources are likely to be in Georgian. That's fine (there's no requirement for sources to be in English), but it would be useful to most of our readership if any citations included a translated quote in the citation. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years Later (TV series)[edit]

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

In my WP:BEFORE search, I was unable to find any secondary sources coverage for the show, not even in the Georgian title (different subjects come up) so it fails WP:GNG. Was tagged for verification issues since 2016. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am bad at googling in scripts I can't read, but I did notice that we did not have an interwiki link to the Georgian article. I have since added that. In what I found when looking, I did see a preponderance of links for TV show clips, so it does make me think that, if someone can read Georgian, such information may be available. As such, I lean toward leaving this as a stub and keeping. matt91486 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also of note, the network it is on is a national private network as far as I can tell, which means it should pass WP:TVSERIES. matt91486 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Matt91486: The problem here is WP:TVSERIES also says a sentence later...In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. Either there are sources to back the notability or there are not. Check WP:NRVE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I think it's pretty clear that without being able to search for Georgian sources effectively, it's difficult for us to say there is an 'absence' of reliable sources. Hopefully a reader who has Georgian language ability can help. The Georgian article is moderately substantial, which leads me to believe that such sources do exist. Or see literally the next policy below NRVE (WP:NEXIST). We can go round and round in policy refs though, it's pretty clear that this will fall between lots of conflicting ones. We don't even have a good list of Georgian newspapers that we could hypothetically search. List of newspapers in Georgia (country) is a pretty incomplete seeming list, and when I try to google some of the red links -- even those that are allegedly the papers of record according to a BBC list, I'm not able to clearly find websites for them. I worry about systemic bias concerns for including content that is "easier" to make. Perhaps we could post it at the Georgian (country) Wikiproject for assistance? I did not do it myself, since I don't want to violate WP:CANVASS. matt91486 (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Matt91486: WP:NEXIST says that Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, and there still are not any reliable coverage in secondary sources to be found. If not, this should be deleted, nothing more, nothing less. And...is that source you posted a foreign site for watching TV shows illegally online? Even if it was a legal one, either way that is not a source that counts towards notability. Hopefully someone else will help here, or this has no reason to stay in mainspace of Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's an illegal streaming website, but I can't rule it out. That wasn't my intention anyway. I think it's a media portal for the Adjara region. As for your reading of NP:EXIST, you skipped the remainder of the sentence, where it says "not their immediate presence or citation in an article". It's clear at this point we don't have their immediate presence, given that neither of us can read Georgian. At this point we just gave different views on the likelihood of those sources existing. I tend toward the TVSERIES view personally. I will post in the relevant wikiproject group in as non-canvass a way as possible in the hopes that someone may be able to offer relevant, regional expertise. matt91486 (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
net.adjara.com or adjara.net.com is a largely illegal streaming website. It is not a media portal for Adjara. Its name intentionally mimics the locally famous bookmaker Adjara Bet. Thus, it fails WP:RS.--KoberTalk 20:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Thanks for the clarification. matt91486 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a particularly great source, but it at least seems to be independent, reliable, and verifiable. [12]. But anything more substantial would require looking for someone who can read Georgian, I think. matt91486 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm assuming User:Mongodbfan is a sock. Ignoring that, we're left with unanimous (if poorly attended) consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation[edit]

FairCom Corporation (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 find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Business insider and Engineering.com are legitimate sources base upon WP:N. It is obvious that who ever created the page is a novice, but from what I can tell, the content is accurate and is not promotional. It is just stating facts. Also, FairCom is company that has been around for more than 35 years, which demonstrates it is a significant entity. TexasTerror (talk)

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FairCom Corporation is one of the oldest database technology companies in existence. It may be small, but it used by major companies such as Verizon, Visa, UPS and Rockwell Automation. The page should not be deleted.BubbaBexley (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this editor has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock vote, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TexasTerror.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C-treeACE[edit]

C-treeACE (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 find virtually no applicable coverage in independent sources meeting WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
— Insight890 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The sources may qualify as reliable sources, but these are just mentions in lists, not significant coverage as is called for to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Note to User:Aoziwe, it's not useful in a deletion discussion to assert that sources exist, but not cite any of them. Given that you didn't provide any specific sources, I was forced to discount your argument. If you think you can find sources (and are willing to commit to doing the work), let me know and I'll restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will Fowles[edit]

Will Fowles (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 multiple-time failed political candidate. Very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect from what you have written that we are looking at the same material. Yes there are not many sources which by themselves standalone as indepth material in their own right, but I felt the lesser material when accumulated was sufficient to keep the article and indeed add to it in some areas. There is certainly a lot more material than many other articles rely on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instarea[edit]

Instarea (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 convinced this company passes WP:NCORP. Most of the coverage listed looks like routine business activity or non-notable awards or lists of companies (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and the Medium piece is an interview (so not an independent source). shoy (reactions) 14:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anu Kumari Dahiya[edit]

Anu Kumari Dahiya (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:BLP1E. As per my research, Union Public Service Commission examinations are scheduled annually. Every year there must be a topper and 2nd ranked examinees. Not every such person are encyclopedic. Here the subject is not known for anything else that can help in demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SFC Press[edit]

SFC Press (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 on a profitmaking corporation has been devoid of references for the last 13 years. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any references. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INews (TV program)[edit]

INews (TV program) (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 able to find any kind of extensive coverage from reliable sources on this topic. Most of the available references that I found are about iNews, the original network of this program. Fails WP:GNG. Notability can not be inherited. Apart from all that, Wikipedia is not a TV guide, see WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Hitro talk 09:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UseeTV[edit]

UseeTV (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:PROMO and WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources can be found. I tried to draftify the article but creator moved it back to mainspace without much improvement. Not suitable for mainspace in its current form. Hitro talk 08:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus on what should be done with Upanayana, but this article is found to be unsuitable for the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Nanak and the Sacred Thread[edit]

Guru Nanak and the Sacred Thread (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 essay outside of Wikipedia scope — kashmīrī TALK 13:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American International Health Alliance[edit]

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

Article is based almost entirely on primary sources. A search for valid secondary sources comes up empty. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Money (2019 film)[edit]

New Money (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found that the article is not well edited while creating and same source from [13] TheRedBox (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The one keep argument asserts that sources exist, but doesn't actually say what they are. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-a-Lock[edit]

Pop-a-Lock (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 franchise locksmith company that doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Working references are trivial; and references I find are either trivial or press releases. A variety of issues with content in all revisions (dating to 2005). power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Mills[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a notable actor. When trying to find sources to verify the claims in the article, I came up with almost nothing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers. After merge redirect. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wicks (Cambridgeshire cricketer)[edit]

Wicks (Cambridgeshire cricketer) (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, unknown man. Page has 1 source, is a stub and is near-impossible to come by. SleepForever (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete LOL this goes to show you that anyone can make a Wikipedia page...Trillfendi (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A possible redirect target would be List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers if there was a consensus that the same action as occurred in the Chitty case be followed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wynnewood Institute[edit]

The Wynnewood Institute (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 institution. Provided sources do not demonstrate notability (See: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:MargaretRDonald, I am sure you commented in good faith, nevertheless, just fyi: nominating an article is regarded as a "no" iVote. Nom is free to change an opinion, but not to vote a 2nd time. You should strike your 2nd ivote. It can take time to get the hang of these things. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Riding Rockets[edit]

Riding Rockets (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 pages fails to meet standards for WP:NOTE, specifically WP:BOOKCRIT. The article fails to meet these criteria, as the book itself has not won any major literary awards, been the subject of academic interest, or been adapted as a major motion picture. Mike Mullane is notable as an astronaut, and the contents of his book that describe his life and those of his fellow astronauts are more relevant for their individual pages. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at a newspaper database finds additional reviews in Entertainment Weekly, Albuquerque Journal, Choice, Booklist, and The Santa Fe New Mexican. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the book reviews, and even cited the NY Times review on the Mike Mullane page. However, I interpreted that rule as books that generate articles about the book, not just a review (the examples that come to mind are many of the recent political books that the release of them is considered a significant event and there are associated articles written about their release vs. a review. The books that come to mind are the recent political books critical of the Trump Administration, such as Fear: Trump in the White House or A Higher Loyalty, as there were many articles written about the books, not just a review. I didn't think a review of a book would qualify, as almost any book reviewed by a major newspaper upon its release woud likely achieve notability to qualify. Please let me know if I've missed the mark on that one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second sentence of WP:NBOOK#1 says "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." You've missed the mark on that one. In your hypothetical case, you're right that one review in a major newspaper is not enough. But this book has at least eight reviews in independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:NBOOK#1. Bakazaka (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, it appears that I was 100% in the wrong on my interpretation of the notability guidelines. Thanks for keeping me honest, @Bakazaka:. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Fowler[edit]

Georgia Fowler (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)

Sigh. Proposing deletion of the article because there’s really no way around it. No reliable sources (ok New Zealand Herald is... but half the article is about another model and this ties into my point about Victoria’s Secret), 2 “sources” claiming she dated Harry Styles (no she didn’t) yet nothing about her career as a model, not even a career section given. Article seems to assert that her only “notability” is that she’s someone’s daughter and someone’s fling. I tried looking for sources about her modeling career yet from what I’ve seen, it seems her only job was walking in the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show twice. While I admit that models would kill for that, she hasn’t parlayed it into an actual notable career to speak of. “Sources” only talk about her diet or exercise regime for this show.... Maybe—just maybe—there is room for improvement, but this is no WP:NMODEL Trillfendi (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=UxxWDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA314&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA314#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=QT5IDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA68&dq=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&pg=PA68#v=onepage&q=%22C-treeACE%22%20-wikipedia&f=false