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. Forgot a Google Scholar WP:BEFORE check was required, so withdrawing. Marking for source improvement. (Nominator withdrawal) (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Pittet[edit]

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

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

BLP does not appear to have any sources that prove notability, thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, and certainly not WP:BLP. There is a claim of notability of being widely cited in two fields, but this claim is not backed up by a source that appears reliable. WP:BEFORE did not turn up anything of credible notability either. Books published are not notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Inadequate WP:BEFORE if it didn't involve looking at Google Scholar, which shows the subject's work cited over 21,000 times, easily passing WP:NACADEMIC#1. Bakazaka (talk) 23:56, 3 October 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. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn–Yale football rivalry[edit]

Penn–Yale football rivalry (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)

Another in a series of entirely-unsourced Ivy League football "rivalry" articles dating to March 2016. WP:NRIVALRY says "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable" and defers to WP:GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Currently there are zero supporting citations, so fails GNG. Searches do not return significant coverage in independent sources to meet GNG standards ("significant coverage") in my view.

Non-GNG callouts:

• site:newspapers.com is good for sourcing significant historical coverage
• site:nytimes.com is another, including the very minor[1]
• Modify as helpful, but neither returned much for me.
• site:pennathletics.com yale rivalry football seems to avoid usage in articles where you'd expect to find it
• site:yalebulldogs.com penn rivalry (primary source issues aside) returns [2] UW Dawgs (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's only a rivalry in the sense some sportswriters used the term to describe one team playing another, which is a correct definition of the word, but not the definition we use here to determine whether two schools are rivals. Not an actual rivalry, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 07:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rivalries are not notable unless reliable sources have given them significant coverage. Rzvas (talk) 03:20, 7 October 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. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (role-playing game)[edit]

Nemesis (role-playing game) (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 on a commercial product has lacked independent sources of any kind for the last 12 years; the only reference in article is to product's manual. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find anything in RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:PROMO violation, fails WP:NPRODUCT. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only source is WP:PRIMARY. SportingFlyer talk 07:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after source I added and if more can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games. BOZ (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, one source does not constitute notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:59, 10 October 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. Tone 13:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship[edit]

Laois Senior’A Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sign of notability. Not only does Google turn up nothing of substance for laois "senior a hurling championship, it turns up little for "senior a hurling championship" altogether. I don't know what "Senior’A Championship" means, but, for hurling, it categorically has almost no coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering whether it qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G7, as when I arrived at the article, I saw that it had an AFD tag on it that was pointing to the deletion discussion for a different article. I just noticed that that tag was placed there by the article's creator, so perhaps it amounts to deletion requested by author. Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (3rd nomination). Ajf773 (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Ajf773. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone; has an improperly-formatted title, but even without such issues it's still non-notable like the other similar pages. I've heard another page similar to this one has been AfD'd multiple times (all either without consensus or a consensus to delete), so at worst maybe salt, but I'm not sure that's necessary. --John M Wolfson (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 14:32, 8 October 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. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Marrale[edit]

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

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

Biography's sources are largely not WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:RS. A BEFORE search is frustrated by a better known high school baseball player, however, the handful of sources found are generally quotes or fleeting mentions and not significant, biographical coverage. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. No notable Ghits. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 4 October 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. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McCann (footballer, born 1982)[edit]

Ryan McCann (footballer, born 1982) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:NFOOTY, having not played international football or in a fully professional league. No indication of significant coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. There is a source is to a BBC news article about McCann, but this is routine coverage about an injury. Jellyman (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I created the article in my more naïve days. Agree as per reasons given by GiantSnowman. Andygray110 (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and all users above. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails both WP:Footy and WP:GNG JC7V-constructive zone 17:34, 6 October 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 Shigenobu Nagamori. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamori Foundation[edit]

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

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Not a notable enough organisation, and only founded in 2014. Anything covered here can easily be merged into Shigenobu Nagamori. Edwardx (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Shigenobu Nagamori. The awards get some RS coverage, eg [3] [4] [5], but even jawiki does not have a separate article on the foundation (永守財団), and the paragraph of useful information is already in the Shigenobu Nagamori article's Philanthropy section. Bakazaka (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shigenobu Nagamori until notability is completely established. --RaviC (talk) 10:53, 5 October 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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoKitties[edit]

CryptoKitties (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)

Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain articles are under general sanctions. The sources cited in the article I would largely view as unreliable, as they are primarily publications within the crypto realm. (Though Industry publications are not inherently unreliable) I'm just not seeing the notability, other than the WP:TRIVIA of being the first "game" to incorporate blockchain technology. Bkissin (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Easily passes WP:GNG by a longshot. Has Venturebeat [6], Bloomberg [7], NPR [8], CNET [9], NYT.com [10], Fortune [11], TechCrunch [12], San Francisco Chronicle [13], BBC [14], SSRN (academic) [15], about 5 more google books sources, etc. @Bkissin: did you even bother to look at google news [16] or google books [17] before nominating this? Note WP:Trivia also has no bearing on WP:GNG, thus your nomination doesn't even state a valid reason for nomination (as there clearly are a lot of high quality WP:RS that features the article's subject). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. in spite of our usually well-warranted skepticism for topics such as this, it seems the NYT article along with the others just mentioned are sufficient to justify it. I tend to be rather suspicious about coverage based on press releases, but the NYT article at least seems genuinely reliable and the CBC only slightly based upon the company's PR. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks DGG. I wasn't 100% on it, but I figured that it was worth the discussion given the number of sources and notability. But Smithandteam is right, perhaps this was more of a WP:Snowball situation. Bkissin (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and WP:Snowball - this is a very notable scam (/s WP:SOAP). @SmithAndTeam (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 3 October 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptris[edit]

Sculptris (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 best article I can find on it is Lifehacker and it simply describes what the program is. All the rest spend more time on describing what a 3D modeling program or Pixologic is than on Sculptris itself. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. It gets coverage in books, nothing much on news though. [18][19][20]. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 7 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goji's[edit]

Goji's (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)

Small-scale fro-yo chain that fails WP:NCORP, specifically from a lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. Only cited to one source (dead link) but that source appears to deal with frozen yogurt in general and not this brand specifically. A WP:BEFORE search didn't turn up much else. Teemu08 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - violates WP:YELLOW and WP:PROMO. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:51, 3 October 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. Tone 13:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Productions[edit]

Indigo Productions (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)

Cannot see how this company meets. WP:GNG. Sole claim to fame is production of a single bit of youtube content, JK Divorce Entrance Dance, a spoof of JK Wedding Entrance Dance. The company possible merits a redirect to the latter article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the refs in the article don't support notability, i googled for them and tried news, nothing there I can see. Szzuk (talk) 19:09, 7 October 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. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AB Liner[edit]

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

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete AB Liner finds a few mentions in accident related news articles, however that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV regarding the subject itself. --RaviC (talk) 10:55, 5 October 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 Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History. Stuff can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Transit of Mindanao[edit]

Rural Transit of Mindanao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History in lieu of deletion. Vallacar Transit is notable. I have posted sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI) demonstrating that sources have called Vallacar Transit "the largest bus company in the Philippines" (Asian Development Bank) and "the largest bus fleet in the country" (The Philippine Star).

  Cunard (talk) 09:18, 6 October 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. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yanson Group of Bus Companies[edit]

Yanson Group of Bus Companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination is vague - there are sources in the article so are they reliable? If not, then what would be reliable sources? Peter James (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Peter James sources may be reliable but may still not meet the criteria for establishing notability - please see WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, references are either in-passing or are not intellectually independent failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or a Yellow Pages nor a substitute for a corporate webpage. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find much about this, most the sources don't mention it, and I'm not sure what it is - presumably a corporate group but is it a holding company, or a group of separate companies under the same ownership or management? Vallacar Transit seems to be mentioned quite a bit in the news, and is likely to be notable. Peter James (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Vallacar Transit (VTI)#History (where it is already discussed) in lieu of deletion. Peter James (talk · contribs), you are correct that Vallacar Transit is notable. I have posted sources at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI) demonstrating that sources have called Vallacar Transit "the largest bus company in the Philippines" (Asian Development Bank) and "the largest bus fleet in the country" (The Philippine Star).

  Cunard (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it's so funny to know that the wikipedia article of the biggest bus company in the Philippines is being nominated for deletion. lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.190.67.56 (talk) 18:03, 7 October 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres Liner[edit]

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

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

As per WP:ORG and WP:FAILORG. hueman1 (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - They sponsor the football club Ceres–Negros F.C., is that a good claim to notability? In addition, there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage about the company, although they appear to mostly be about accidents involving their buses, or news about their fares. With that said, there does appear to be some coverage about the company, such as this link and this link, but I'm not sure of their reliability (the latter link appears to be a local newspaper of some kind). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being the sponsor of the football club Ceres–Negros F.C. is a good claim to notability. In addition to the sources Narutolovehinata5 found, I also found this article from Sun.Star's Superbalita Cebu and this article from The Philippine Star. I also found this book source:
  • Basilio, Enrico L.; Frielink, Barend; Acena, Jeremiah; Hernandez, Rafael; Faustino, Jaime (April 2010). Bridges across Oceans: Initial Impact Assessment of the Philippines Nautical Highway System and Lessons for Southeast Asia (PDF). Metro Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. pp. 26–27. ISBN 978-971-561-896-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-10-06. Retrieved 2018-10-06.

    The book notes:

    New Business Opportunities for Transport Companies
    
    With an expanded Ro-Ro network in place throughout the country, the trucking industry has widened its market coverage and is gradually undergoing a major transformation in the manner in which it conducts business. The following case study focuses on the impact of Ro-Ro on Vallacar Transit Corporation, the largest bus company in the Philippines.
    
    Vallacar Transit Corporation
    
    Vallacar Transit Corporation runs a number of major fleets, including Vallacar Transit, Rural Transit of Mindanao, Bachelor Express, and Ceres Transport. To date, it has the largest bus fleet in the country with more than 2,000 buses operating in the provinces of Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao (Table 9). The following paragraph gives a list of the destinations as well as the routes being served by this company, which is already operating on nearly 8% of the bus routes in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, as well as parts of Luzon.

    [Table 9: List of Routes Serviced by Vallacar Transit]

    Within its Bacolod (Negros) transport hub alone, the Ceres Liner services the following destinations from Bacolod: Escalante, Minapasok, Dumaguete, Kabankalan, San Carlos via Cadiz, San Carlos via Don Salvador Benedicto, Hinoba-an, Candoni, Culipapa, Canlaon via San Carlo, Cadiz, Binalbagan, and Fabrica.

    The company is continuously exploiting new opportunities due to the expansion of the Ro-Ro network. For example, because of the opening of Ro-Ro routes linking Bacolod and Negros Occidental to Cebu (Escalante–Tabuelan and San Carlos–Toledo routes) and to Mindanao (via Damaguete–Dapitan link), Ceres' buses now service Cebu City and Zamboanga City. In 2008, the bus company extended operations from Cebu to the Samar-Leyte region, because of the available Ro-Ro links on the Tacloban (Leyte)–Cebu and San Isidro–Cebu Ro-Ro routes. In 2008, Ceres Liner pioneered inter-modal transport service (i.e., via land and Ro-Ro transport) from Cubao in Quezon City all the way to Zamboanga City using the Western Nautical Highway.

    I also used this source for the parent company, Vallacar Transit (VTI), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vallacar Transit (VTI).
  Cunard (talk) 09:51, 6 October 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. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katarrama[edit]

Katarrama (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)

20 references, none of which are reliable, no coverage in reliable sources or notable releases, absolutely fails WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the refs are track listings and similar, google showing not much, nobody watching on youtube, ~ 2 views per day. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy -- no clear evidence of notability. Mostly blogs and other non-WP:RS. If any true WP:RS can be found, ping me. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:19, 10 October 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. Tone 13:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bitmixer.IO[edit]

Bitmixer.IO (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 defunct site that seems to lack notability (perhaps better as a part of the cryptocurrency tumbler general article) Nanite (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, shortlived and dead. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 7 October 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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charoensri F.C.[edit]

Charoensri F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not meet topic specific guidelines WP:FOOTYN. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Champions (representing Udon Thani) of the Thailand Prime Minister Cup (a junior and general public competition) in 2016 and 2018.[21] Couldn't identify any in-depth coverage of the team itself though. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A quick look on trying to find the team and it fails WP:GNG as the only sources I could find was Youtube and Facebook sources which doesn't relate to anything that is needed here. Not Homura (talk) 00:40, 5 October 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. Further discussion regarding the article, a possible title change and its content can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Evaluation Association[edit]

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

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

Non-notable organisation with a notable product Measures of Academic Progress which doesn't (yet) have an article. Sourced only by its own website. A Google search is only returning business listings, social media, and its own website. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Also the creator of the article did not follow the standard AfC process. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm a little confused here. Cabayi, you're saying their main product, MAP, is notable - a statement I would definitely agree with. NWEA-MAP is a giant in the K-12 testing space, and plenty of writing has been done on it. It's pretty common for individual products to be merged with their companies, especially when there's not an article on the individual product. There's plenty of coverage of MAP, like this extensive Department of Education report, multiple academic publications studying the reliability and validity and effectiveness of interventions based on it ([22][23] [24] [25][26]) or news coverage of the controversy surrounding some of the tests and their implementation and the like ([27][28][29])[30][31]). I think one could argue for inclusion based on a few sources focused on NWEA in general or the non-MAP parts ([32][33]), but while I know notability is not inherited, in the absence of a MAP-specific article, I don't see the problem in keeping the parent company article. I may be misunderstanding though. MarginalCost (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If a product is well-known but the company doesn't receive any attention of its own, then the company should be covered in an article on the product, not the other way around. Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're right. I wouldn't oppose a move to NWEA MAP, MAP assessment, MAP (assessment) or any similar kind of title (including those with the abbreviations spelled out). I think I had more in mind when a company is indistinguishable from the signature product it produces, which admittedly may not be case here. In any event, I think deletion would be inappropriate here. MarginalCost (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What I wrote just above notwithstanding, I find a great deal of coverage via Google News attributing substantial significance to the Northwest Evaluation Association as a provider of assessments and tests. This, despite one source that says "Northwest Evaluation Association is not well-known in Portland, even though it develops and administers tests for 10 million students a year." Largoplazo (talk) 03:04, 19 September 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 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Shapiro[edit]

Stephen Shapiro (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)

Looking at the cited sources and online, not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Neither of the books "24/7 Innovation" nor "Goal-Free Living" seem to have significant reviews. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not easy to search for. There seem to be several notable people called Stephen Shapiro (with or without a middle name). I don't know what the "M" in Stephen M Shapiro stands for. GScholar citations for Stephen M Shapiro: [34]. The book "24/7 Innovation" by this author is highly cited with 183 cites. There are some other highly cited works there with 100+ cites, especially the Supreme Court Practice of Stern, Gressman, Shapiro and Geller, and the spectrometry papers, but they might by someone else, judging by their dates and content. James500 (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:PROMO sourced to Amazon.com, Keynotespeakers.com and similar. To check notability, I searched the book titles. 24/7 Innovation: A Blueprint for Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Change got a suspiciously glowing writeup in the Appleton, Wisconsin newspaper The Post-Crescent [35], not a book review just a promo paean. The book did get him quoted in the New York Times Ways to Move Up When the Economy Moves Down, Alexander, Karen. New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]18 Aug 2002: 3.9. [ https://search.proquest.com/news/docview/432157965/fulltext/E72C7F21C7C2423FPQ/9?accountid=10226 "Stephen M. Shapiro, author of 24/7 Innovation: A Blueprint for Surviving and Thriving in an Age of Change (McGraw-Hill, 2001), said that workers looking to move ahead should try to differentiate themselves, making sure that those in the position to promote take notice. Sometimes, he added, that may mean taking on new responsibilities without any immediate financial reward. 'You don't want to become a noisemaker for the sake of doing it, he said, but you do want to look for ways that you can make a difference in the company that no one else is doing.'"]. His next book Goal Free Living: How to Have the Life You Want Now, got him quoted in articles like, "Trends show fewer make resolutions: So, say some authors, just enjoy the new year," Meehan, Mary. Edmonton Journal; Edmonton, Alta. [Edmonton, Alta]30 Dec 2005: C5. " Resolutions are "one of the nation's most masochistic traditions," according to Stephen Shapiro, an author who recently released a survey on the topic. People set themselves up for failure by leaping into an often- drastic life change without a plan on how to execute it, said Shapiro. It's not that the Boston-based author is against improving your life -- after all, he's written the how-to book Goal Free Living: How to Have the Life You Want Now." I am not persuaded that he's notable, but the article is a blatant ADVERT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. no relevant significant references. The isolated quotes aren ot sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 October 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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch[edit]

Center for Paraguayan Studies Antonio Guasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG, promo. Based on passing mentions, plain listings, related websites and dead links. The Banner talk 10:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article appears to have been created by synthesizing tiny snippets and mentions. Look for example at this reference, which links to a list of reccommended books by CEPAG. This is typical of the quality of the references. At minimum it needs TNT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete No evidence of in depth coverage. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per reasons given by BillHPike. I've tried going through the citations and can't find any notable secondary sources. Pjposullivan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 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 Red Velvet (band). Sandstein 12:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Velvet concert tours[edit]

List of Red Velvet concert tours (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:NTOUR a tour must have "received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" as an event in its own right. That is not the case with the individual tours in this list or as a group. Most of the sources used are merely promotional announcements for an upcoming tour or basic schedules. The source currently at footnote #1 is about one particular show that got press coverage, and that can be described as a historical event at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Comment. It is a list. LISTN applies not NTOUR. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTA. Simply mentioning a guideline is meaningless without describing how exactly it helps the article under discussion. Per the cited WP:LISTN: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables" and "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." (Emphasis in original.) I can find no evidence of notability from independent sources for this list of tours as a group, as said in the guideline that you dropped. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NTOUR, not particularly clear how it meets WP:LISTN either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Red Velvet (band). While this could be viewed as a valid WP:SPINOUT from the main article, merging to the main article will make it more comprehensive. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:CSC bullet point 2. Szzuk (talk) 17:43, 10 October 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. Despite some questionable "keep" opinions, the support for deletion is just not there. Sandstein 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Baba Khan[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Ali Baba Khan (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)

Being a singer is not in itself grounds for notability, so the question is whether there are multiple reliable, independent sources that discuss the person in depth.. I ran quick Google search and found this and this. (both cited in the article)

Both news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. In no source presented can I find the subject discussed with the "significant coverage" WP:GNG requires. Saqib (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough coverage in multiple reliable references. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DBigXray. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has lot of coverage in Urdu and Pashto languages as he itself a Pashto language singer. like some reliable sources from Radio Mashaal: 1, 2, 3 and 4, from RadioBuner this from Dhanak London this, from Daily Jang this and this, this and many others. علی بابا خان Google Urdu/Pashto Search Ainty Painty (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mashaal Radio links (1, 2, 3, and 4) are not opening for me. Rest of the sources are not even reliable enough to support claims within an article, let alone to establish WP:N. Jang is a RS but it does not discusses the subject in detail. Also there's no point in posting links to Google search results -> WP:GHITS. --Saqib (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With reliable sources like (DAWN, Jang, The Express Tribune, Radio Mashaal and The Frontier Post etc ) the subject have also a lot of other sources too. But the others sources doesn't mean that they are valueless, it also make some sense. Na Maloom Fard (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Na Maloom Fard (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You need to provide links to coverage. Saqib (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources :1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Na Maloom Fard (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source is a RS. You above claimed that subject has received coverage in Dawn, The Express Tribune etc. Saqib (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just mentioned these because as I told the subject besides having RS also having other sources which also make some sense. Here are RS: The Express Tribune, DAWN, The Frontier Post and Daily Jang Na Maloom Fard (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nominator and next editor, the sources are not independent. The coverage consists largely of vanity hits, which anyone can facilitate. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nomination, and Robert above this comment. I couldnt find significant coverage for the subject. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is a real hero of pashto language, he introduce trance music in pashto, also modern sofism in pashto, Tribute to his great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.8.242 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 39.60.8.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep The sources provided is reliable. He is the first sufi rock singer of pashtoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.64 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.64 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
• keep Ali Baba Khan is the best singer of kpk. He introduce Sufi rock music in pashto music industry.N], The Frontier Post and Daily Jang shows that he is the first artist to tribute to Rahman Baba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.113 (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.113 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
• Keep With reliable sources like (DAWN, Jang, The Express Tribune, Radio Mashaal and The Frontier Post etc ) I have seen these sources to make me sure that its a relaible sources .Yes Ali Baba Khan is a sufi singer of pashtoons.I love his songs Dozakhi and janat hoora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.107 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC) — 103.255.6.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV due to detailed coverage in independent major Pakistani print media such as The Express Tribune, DAWN, The Frontier Post and Daily Jang as linked above by Na Maloom Fard. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments above pertaining to the coverage you provided. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This sources given below shows its relaible.He tribute Rehman Baba by the name of titled Malang Abdur Rehman. He is a Sufi Singer of pashto music.this and this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.61 (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.9.61 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]
• keep this the source provided is a genuine and reliable.Pashto Sufi singer Ali Baba Khan released his video titled ‘Malang Abdur Rahman’ to pay tribute to legendary 17th Sufi poet Rahman Baba.Ali Baba Khan is a genuine Artist singer of kpk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.11.24 (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) — 43.245.11.24 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. [reply]

• Comment The Dawn source looks convincing. Can't say anything about the other sources as I haven't looked them into much detail yet. Mar4d (talk) 15:09, 5 October 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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Vaartha[edit]

Metro Vaartha (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)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:NMEDIA. Google searches appear to only result in news articles from this organization and a few books that discuss writers from this organization. Waggie (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:01, 8 October 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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act[edit]

Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act (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:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information, and the History section contains plenty of that) as there are no other contributions, except a couple of sentences. wumbolo ^^^ 15:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:G5 requires "no substantial edits by others". Substantial edits have been made by other editors, so WP:G5 does not apply. Bakazaka (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Bakazaka. Seems like an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Yes, unfortunately seems was created by a sockpuppet but (at a glance) article content seems to withstood scrutiny of various editors so reasonable for it to stand, and its removal would almost seem like an act of censorship. Article removal (and no doubt reasonable) recreation would also risk copyright non attribution claims arising due to copies no doubt present on other sites.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would also reject G% as there have been several substantial edits by others. The content is fine, it's well sourced etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:31, 4 October 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. Speedy deleted by Cyp, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Egypt Cup qualifying rounds[edit]

2016–17 Egypt Cup qualifying rounds (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)

Even though I created this article, I think that it should be deleted now because I literally couldn't find any sources to confirm anything; and because of that the article is incomplete. Ben5218 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - maybe even speedy, unreferenced and requested by the creator of the article. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete G7 applies and tagged G7 Hhkohh (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per Hhkohh. 21.colinthompson (talk) 17:28, 6 October 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. Tone 13:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Watts[edit]

Clint Watts (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:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing political biographies) as there are no other contributions, except reverted edits by single-purpose accounts. wumbolo ^^^ 15:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is unfair to say that Sagecandor was the only contributor. He created the article but there have been several other contributors since then. Passes GNG for what it's worth (although I don't think that's what is at issue here). ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article was created by a sock puppet of a banned (but not blocked) user. It is unclear what "substantial edits by others" means in G5, which is the sole reason given for deleting the article. According to the edit counter 27 other non-bot editors are responsible for about 15% of the content of the article but edits or text. I'm willing to be swayed by arguments about what is a substantial amount of edits, but given that the editor in question was not blocked, I'm inclined to save the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hawkeye7: I have the WhoColor extension on my Google Chrome browser, and Sagecandor created 100% of the article. wumbolo ^^^ 07:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm. He removed a "Controversy" section as "BLP violation and Synth" - this may have been the primary contribution by others. Your own contribution appears to be the banner at the top. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 7 October 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 12:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TrumpiLeaks[edit]

TrumpiLeaks (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:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information, in this case Trump) as there are no other contributions, except technical fixes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's over a year of many editors in the history. Widefox; talk 15:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd say WP:A11 would be applicable here, but since it's already at AfD and has a lot of editors, I'll just have to go with this failing WP:GNG and violating WP:SYNTHESIS. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on a nearly dead website. It never took off. From the initial flurry of very limited attention, it fizzled out. There was no "there" there. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:24, 4 October 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. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If It Ain't Got That Swing[edit]

If It Ain't Got That Swing (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:G5 (article author is blocked sock of editor topic banned from editing articles containing political or religious biographical information) as there are no other contributions, except technical fixes. wumbolo ^^^ 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes GNG with abundant coverage in reliable sources. This article really isn't about politics anyway, so it wasn't even created in violation of the ban. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The book documents the author's shift from liberalism to support of right-wing politics. How is it not about politics? wumbolo ^^^ 15:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This is about one author's opinion. He is not a well-known commentator nor a key figure in politics. It's a bit of a stretch. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the editor whose signature reads "EDDY" and per the argument advanced in this edit. Satisfies GNG and NBOOK. James500 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: If the article met the G5 CSD, it would have been tagged with ((db-g5)) and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Otherwise, the article has no obvious causes for deletion, nor has the nominator provided one. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong. If G5 is borderline, we don't tag it. I provided a perfectly valid cause for deletion, and nominated it here because it's not exactly clear. If I tagged it with G5, admins would hate me for not being careful, and now that I am being careful, people like you vote keep just for the sake of it. wumbolo ^^^ 17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what you mean by "borderline": either a banned editor created the page, or they didn't. I can't imagine anyone hating you for any legitimate editing, but it's your prerogative. As for vot[ing] keep just for the sake of it: (a) please assume good faith on the part of other editors, and (b) this is a discussion, not a vote. Aside from a G5-CSD with which you're afraid to tag the article, do you have any arguments for its deletion? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop trolling. I have tried tagging for speedy deletion, but that ended up with me (and sometimes other editors) being harassed by the banned users. Now I can't even go to AfD without being criticized for going to AfD. Next time, I will tag with G5, and go to ANI if it's contested. Consider this my last reply to this thread. wumbolo ^^^ 15:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I've replied to Wumbolo (talk · contribs) here. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because as state above "Clearly passes GNG with abundant coverage in reliable sources."Vmavanti (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy NUKE -- we should not encourage sockpupetteers work in any way. If the subject is notable, please rewrite from scratch. We must erase sockmasters from out memory/history.Staszek Lem (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Should we make an exception when the edits are clearly beneficial. I mean, Cirt wasn't blocked when he created the alt account, so he wan't evading a block. He was TBANned on politics pages, which was probably the impetus for the block, but as I've mentioned earlier, this article is only tangentially related to politics. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we shouldn't make an exception to such a critical policy like G5. The work of socks is never welcome. wumbolo ^^^ 10:06, 5 October 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. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film Critics Guild[edit]

Film Critics Guild (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 organisation that was formed today. The 2 sources look like rewritten press releases with phrases such as "The Film Critics Guild (FCG) will, over time, create a platform where the best Indian movies — short, feature and documentaries — can be honoured and celebrated." and "To elevate the standard of films and filmmaking in India and to create an unbiased platform to recognize and award deserving films from all over the country, renowned and celebrated critics...". Fails WP:NORG notable WP:ORGDEPTH as this is incidental coverage. This is WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTNEWS no clarity on why this org will be notable in the near future. the coverage is only for its inauguration and lacks depth needed to keep. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per way WP:TOOSOON. Should it ever become notable a new article can be created. MarnetteD|Talk 16:42, 3 October 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 Droid (Star Wars). As it's now called. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle droid[edit]

Battle droid (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-secondary-sourced fancruft that fails WP:GNG. As a piece of fictional minutia, it is not notable enough to merit its own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Droid (robot). There's good information here, but it can be moved there and sourced properly. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The notability guideline requires reliable, independent sources, for which this article has one. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Droid (robot). Much of this content is more suited for Wikia, but some of it is definitely salvageable. Although battle droids are certainly a notable aspect of Star Wars, there's just not enough real world information to quite justify extended coverage through a separate article.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Droid (robot) as above, as a valid option rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a fine article with nothing wrong with it. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid, the 2008 deletion request (please read the comments there). Deletion is not the way to go with pages like this, or even merged to another. A stand-alone page for this topic does no harm and does much good for readers who happen to be looking for it or run across it. Can we close down AfD for a month (or two) for repairs? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You could always work on your proposed version in draft.—Mythdon (talk/contribs) 23:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you sure these improvements couldn't be added to Droid (Star Wars) instead? It is very dubious that this topic would merit a completely separate article, especially given the lack of reliable sourcing in this one. Also, Wikipedia standards have changed greatly since 2008 and fancruft is much less tolerated than it was then. I've nominated many crufty articles for deletion that had a circa-2008 discussion that went nowhere._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This RfD was put up on October 3, but had not been listed on the WikiProject: Star Wars talk page, which I did earlier. And were the editors who participated in the first RfD in 2008 notified? Maybe some of them are still around. Aren't these steps normal or requested in RfD's? Seems a minimum to do for an long-time article which survived a well-debated RfD (please read the discussion, linked above, for more in-depth 'Keep' viewpoints). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually it's just the creator and the relevant WikiProject's that get notified, both from my experience and what I've observed.—Mythdon 02:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, and the Star Wars wikiproject was not notified, I would think the clock should be started over and this request relisted. This discussion contains nothing like the key arguments put forward by the 'Keepers' in 2008, a discussion which probably should be seen as precedent in this case and required reading for anyone wanting to see both sides here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That'll be up to the discretion of the one closing this discussion. Just because there were arguments for keep then doesn't mean anything since Wikipedia standards change over 10 years, as do issues concerning the article. Also keep in mind the last discussion was closed as no consensus. Those only default to keep because there isn't a clear consensus to delete/merge/whatever, not because they have good keep arguments. Articles can and have been renominated for deletion simply because of "no consensus" at the first AFD. There has to have been improvement since the previous AFD if you want to avoid a delete or merge outcome.—Mythdon 03:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not being pedantic, but this is an AFD, not an RFD; are you sure you're talking about the correct discussion? — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:49, 10 October 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. Tone 13:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werd (SOS)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Overflowing with references (nearly a hundred of them), but almost none of them stand up to scrutiny. Most are links to Bandcamp, iTunes and other sites where you can download Werd's mixtapes and music, or links to blogs (half of which are dead), or the general home pages of organisations with whom Werd has allegedly worked. The best sources for notability are those linked with various BBC music stations, but unfortunately most are for radio shows for which there is no archive, and in any case only demonstrate that Werd was played maybe once or twice, not that his music was placed on rotation, as required by WP:NMUSIC. His appearance in the Charlie Sloth documentary The UK State of Rhyme is limited to an introduction at 30:30 as part of a group of Scottish rappers, and ten seconds of him at 37:30 performing on stage at the Edinburgh Festival. There is also another performance of him on YouTube (citation no. 20) at the Edinburgh Fringe, but none of this provides any biographical or discography detail, and as anyone familiar with the Edinburgh Festival will know, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of performers each year, and few of them are notable simply for performing there. The Scottish New Music Awards don't appear to be notable, nor are the other awards he was nominated for. The guy is talented, no doubt, but I don't see anything that passes the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, and maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If Mark Rankin can have an entry ... this nomination has a whiff of new-establishment bias about it, no more progressive than the Elgar/Vaughan Williams bias of the old print encyclopaedias that Wiki has supplanted. RobinCarmody (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS without explaining what notability guidelines this article passes. And the Mark Rankin article like like it should be AfD'd as well. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I'm glad you think it does (I'd never seen it until trying to find a comparison point), but why has nobody done it? It couldn't be because that article fits within the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias Wikipedia is riddled with and this article doesn't, could it? Singling out this article seems highly suspicious to me, and typical of the limits of liberalism. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5,721,394 articles on the English Wikipedia – it's very likely that many of the non-notable creations lie undiscovered for years until someone comes across them. You say yourself that you found the Mark Rankin article accidentally: I found this one accidentally as well while I was carrying out some disambiguations. So please assume some good faith and don't accuse me of deliberate targetting – I have no interest at all in bringing politics, race or class into any Wikipedia discussion, I simply evaluated this article based on whether it passes WP:GNG, and I believe it doesn't. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or maybe move to draft - Reads like promotion. "some of Scotland's top producers and artists in the genre", "eye-catching artwork", "full backing band that includes some of UK's best known professional musicians", the entire Website / Magazine Quotes section. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete between the deadlinks and attempts to download software, I'm done with trying to check these sources after the first few. WP:CITEBOMBing isn't useful. If the creator wants to point me to actual reliable sources with substantial discussion of the subject I might reconsider, but right now this is failing WP:N and WP:PROMOTION. SpinningSpark 19:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all 99 references Spinningspark - I'll help you out here, nos. 16 and 20 are about the only ones that aren't dead and/or spam, and with no. 16 you'll have to fast forward to about 30 minutes into the video. But honestly, I don't see anything that passes WP:GNG. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "the racist and classist post-Blair new-establishment bias". He he, very funny. Whackjob conspiracy theories aside there is nothing here that makes him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 5 October 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) KCVelaga (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Sajid[edit]

Mohammed Sajid (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 claim of notablity, fails WP:BLPCRIME and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep google turns up several articles in decent news sources. Seem to be focused on one video ISIS put out, but editors shouldn't be fooled by the current state of the article, I'd link that policy that says "don't delete stuff if the article could be better", but I can't remember what it's called. May also have been involved in some well covered anti-islamist police raid in India? More notable that it seems, possibly unclearly due to use of pseudonym. 92.3.155.60 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep plenty of reliable sources found. Article state should not be counted in, just need work. BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename to Bada Sajid. Note that BEFOREing for "Mohammed Sajid" leads one to other terrorists (including on in the UK), a Moroccan minister (who would pass NPOL), and a Pakistni cricketer (Mohammad Sajid - and a/e spelling for Mohammed.... is far from consistent) - I was not convinced searching under this name. However, searching for "Bada Sajid" (the alias, more commonly used) garners coverage lasting over a decade to the Batla House encounter case, including coverage of Sajid's later exploits in Syria. Merging to the 2008 event is probably not a good idea as the later Syria activities are very loosely connected. Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bada Sajid search bar: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sources, per google search results which could be used for expansion once the article is kept. perhaps renaming the article per above is a good thing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and rename to Bada Sajid, per sources found above by User:Icewhiz.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet any of the criteria for perpetrators under WP:CRIME. Most of the coverage is trivial. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 03:26, 11 October 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 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wat Suthiwararam Alumni F.C.[edit]

Wat Suthiwararam Alumni F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN is not met so unlikely to be more sources out there. According to the talk page a Thai reader says the sources do not concern the subject but a school team. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Participated in the 2009[36] and 2010[37] FA Cup. Not sure why the article states it was founded in 2014, which seems obviously incorrect. Couldn't identify in-depth coverage. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• seems like a clear delete to me. English search results return nothing more than mirrors of this page, and WP:FOOTYN seems pretty clear on the notability of this one. tonyxc600 comms logs 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Paul 012 If they were founded in 2014, it can't be the same team that competed in the 2009 & 2010 cup competitions. Therefore, they don't meet the standard of WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm tending to think it's the same team, and that the article is incorrect. Hard to say though, since there's hardly any coverage at all (so probably fails the GNG). --Paul_012 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 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 13:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film Investors Netherlands[edit]

Film Investors Netherlands (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 working references. May not exist. No real claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I did find some initial coverage concerning this scheme: a discussion of its potential "Film Krant", May 1998 and EU Commission approval for this state support later the same year (added as a reference in the article). It appears to have been a limited-funding, limited-term initiative, but my searches are not finding any substantial evaluation or coverage beyond that initial start-up coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 10 October 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. Tone 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crombie Jardine[edit]

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

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

Does not pass WP:ORG Mccapra (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Mjm100, the current article doesn't actually say why the subject is notable. Please expand it to explain that, add some reliable sources and it may have a chance of not being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accesscrawl (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:A7. — Newslinger talk 03:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominated for speedy deletion. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion was declined. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources in the article or online elsewhere. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 8 October 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. Tone 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leonore Lemmon[edit]

Leonore Lemmon (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)

Noted only for being George Reeves' fiancee. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NOTINHERITED. GenuineArt (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being the fiancee of a notable actor does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 8 October 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abhiyantriki[edit]

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

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

Despite the appearance of sourcing, this doesn't pass the GNG--the references are blog posts and various associated websites. Plus, it's really just promotional. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Drmies and now college has a annual technical festival it can be mentioned the college article and fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:17, 5 October 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. Tone 13:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 (1971 film)[edit]

3 (1971 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)

Very short article, last human edit was 7 years ago. Only references provided are film databases, which isn't enough to establish notability - the IMDb listing doesn't have any external reviews or links either. – numbermaniac 06:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 06:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added as source a registry published by the Norwegian Film Institute. Should confirm the existence, although the article is still very short. GAD (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a very short article (only two sentences long) with only one reference, and the external links include a link to the Internet Movie Database. Wikipedia is not meant to be the Internet Movie Database. Vorbee (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I feel that the article does not satisty the reliable source criteriaWP:NFSOURCES and does not satisfy the credible film criteria ofWP:NFO. The article has just two line and has not proper plot of the film.Vinodbasker (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center#Four Diamonds. Clear consensus to delete and redirect -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:11, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon[edit]

Penn State IFC/Panhellenic Dance Marathon (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)

We have just deleted & redirected the Four Diamonds Fund at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Diamonds Fund. This is the article on its annual fund-raising event. The extraordinary detail makes it clear that the intent is promotional. The references are local, and the event is non notable..

See also the adjacent AfD for the AfD on an even less notable related organization. The contents are very similar. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep an annual event that raises $10 million per year is likely to be notable. This appears to get coverage from media across Pennsylvania and not just in the State College, Pennsylvania area; [38] [39]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the appropriate part of the material is already included in the main article. A redirect would make sense. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect charity fundraisers are pretty much routine on any large college campus. Like 1 per weekend per campus. Media coverage is basically routine and not independent. This one is big - if there is any independent source for saying it's the biggest, I missed it. All the refs look mildly promotional and non-independent. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional; as DGG writes this kind of detail can't be anything else; no objection to a non-spam recreation. Sandstein 13:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional and lacking any good sources to establish WP:N. All the sources in the article are first-party or local to the school. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 11 October 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.