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 Santa Clara University#Centers and institutes. Tone 09:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatian Center for Jesuit Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, part of the Santa Clara University without enough notability to warrant a separate article. The Banner talk 09:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Santa Clara University#Centers and institutes, which already contains the paragraph of non-promotional information that can be distilled from this article. Bakazaka (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to Santa Clara University#Centers and institutes. There is no other alternative.desmay (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 22 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 keep. Tone 09:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horipro (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)

Sources are too weak to show that this company passes WP:NORG. Tagged over a year ago as needing more sources to show it meets notability criteria and none have been added. Fails WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No question. Even though there aren't great sources they (and ANN, linked as an ext link, and Japanese Wikipedia's sources) easily show that this company is a major player. I can try and add a few more. —innotata 02:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just going to point to the part at the top of WP:NORG that says "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Applying WP:COMMONSENSE here means thinking that the company that has managed some of the most well-known stars in Japan, and whose name has often been mentioned alongside those stars in their press coverage across several decades, is probably notable enough to have an article in an encyclopedia that readers can consult. The likely conclusion is the same whether or not a Japanese speaker sifts through 18,000+ GNews hits on "ホリプロ". Bakazaka (talk) 09:51, 17 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 keep. Nominator withdrawal due to flawed sourcefinding. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Costello (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 historian, fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This badly flawed nomination does not seem to have even considered the correct notability criterion, WP:PROF, which Costello clearly and obviously passes by virtue of her named distinguished professorship (already stated in the article at nomination) and again a second time for her election as a Fellow in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (easy to find through the sources already present in the article at nomination). In addition (although it will take me some time to collate a more complete list of reviews) JSTOR has at least four reviews for Marianne Moore: Imaginary Possessions, six for Elizabeth Bishop: Questions of Mastery, four for Shifting Ground, and two for Planets on Tables, giving a clear case for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• First, sources for said books? Second, if WP:NAUTHOR is going to be met, the books themselves have to be notable. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for them on JSTOR as I already said. The books are notable by virtue of having many in-depth published independent reviews. As I already said. And you still aren't even addressing WP:PROF. You might try withdrawing this bad nomination instead of, as it appears, doubling down on it even after its problematic nature has already been clearly demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Add said sources to the article. I will withdraw as soon as I get a response to this, but please do so to make sure it meets notability requirements without a doubt. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added many of them before my previous reply, and included sufficient information to find many of them in my original comment here. And you still aren't addressing WP:PROF, which says nothing about the presence of sources in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:34, 17 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 redirect to Xavier Institute for Tribal Education. Tone 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier School, Gamharia (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)

Fail WP:GNG, promo, part of Xavier Institute for Tribal Education but without sufficient notability to warrant a separate article The Banner talk 21:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge not very notable its own. Lorstaking (talk) 07:48, 18 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 11:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Panina (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)

Russian film and TV actress. No important roles and awards. So fails WP:NACTOR. --RTY9099 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 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 September 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles called for by our notability guidelines on actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per source searches, does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 24 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Chale Aaye (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 tele-film does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Saqib (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 16:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Redditaddict69 16:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this article as it is star studded film and has based on social issue of joint family systems and their problems which is common in Pakistan.Film also had good reception and has million of views on YouTube.Lillyput4455 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lillyput4455 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Not a policy based argument to keep the page. --Saqib (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Lack of convincing argument by the creator. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this sources https://nation.com.pk/25-Jun-2017/mehreen-jabbar-mohammad-ahmad-and-marina-khan-the-m-trio-reunite-on-eid, https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/332337-mehreen-jabbar-returns-to-small-screen-with-two-eid-telefilms. The telefilm has received significent coverage in this RS. 39.44.38.65 (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is sock of Pakistanpedia (talk · contribs)

unproven allegation Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has received coverage in Pakistani reliable sources such as the Nation and The News as linked above, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed all the sources, and see nothing but name checking, 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) 04:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • more than namechecking, several paragraphs in each of the sources listed above, the second being a review including critical analysis Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A tele-film. 2 refs in the article 1 doesn't mention it, the other not in depth. News returning nothing substantial i can see. Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as film meet wikipedia guidelines for WP:television and has reliable sources from international newspapers like Nation.Com and The News.Lillyput4455 (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure I see that much of an issue here now that some reliable sources have been added to the article. Meets WP: GNG well enough to pass, barely though. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:20, 20 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 11:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. "References" are single line entries, facebook supported blogs, or fail to mention the article subject. "References" fail to meet the standards in WP:RS and fail to provide significant coverage.reddogsix (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I strongly object to the deletion of this page. The politician is a notable one. A simple google search will tell you this. The references provided are mostly from the most popular Nigerian newspapers and from the Nigerian law report confirming most of what was reported. Emmantox (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @reddogsix - Since "Significant coverage is certainly not a brief mention or two in a (sic) article", how many mentions and how lengthy do they have to be to be considered significant by "Wikipedia's" standards. Lyteon01 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - @Lyteon01 - As a start, show me one that is more than a brief mention of the subject and in-depth about the subject - the Wikipedia article is supported by very brief mentions about the article subject. The subject's name in a list of people such as "...while members included Chief Olabisi Johnson," is not in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @reddogsix - You have now moved from the issue of notability and significant coverage to Conflict of Interest. Have you considered the possibility that I am just doing a lot of research on the subject and updating the article as the info becomes available? Have you considered the possibility that the subject is notable enough for all this info to be public knowledge within the subject's community and readily available without the editors having any close association with the subject? You proposed that the article should be improved upon yet you continue to pick new issues with each new improvement. Is this also "Wikipedia's standards"? Lyteon01 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• @Lyteon01- No one has changed the focus of ther AfD except you. Lyteon01 created the coi by indicating the staged photo was Lyteon01's own work - this indicates a high probability of coi. I also note you did not deny the coi.

Instead of ignoring the real issue, as I indicated above, point out one reference more than a brief mention of the subject and in-depth about the subject - the Wikipedia article is supported by very brief mentions about the article subject. The subject's name in a list of people such as "...while members included Chief Olabisi Johnson," is not in-depth, non-trivial support. Ignoring the issue of notability will not make it go away. reddogsix (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @reddogsix- Like I earlier pointed out to you, the subject is a public figure in a third world country where internet access is relatively recent and still very limited. Being a public figure, anybody can take a photo of him as I did. This does not in anyway indicate a close connection. Would you have preferred a photo from a source that could generate copyright issues for you to pick on? Demanding the kind of online presence that you term "significant coverage" from persons who have only recently gained exposure to the internet doesn't speak much to fair-play. I believe by coi, you refer to this article being a paid job. It is not; and I expect that by Wikipedia standards, that should be taken without prejudice and in good faith. If all the facts that have been placed before you are not sufficient in your opinion to leave this article be, please feel free to yank it off. Obviously, you have made up your mind and no amount of improvement to the article will satisfy you. Lyteon01 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC)— Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• @Lyteon01 - The criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia is quite clear and has been pointed out to you numerous times. Please see WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN, and WP:GNG. Just being a public figure is not one of the criteria. Unfortunately, there is no provision for newly minted figures to get a pass because their coverage is not adequate to support inclusion into Wikipedia. I agree it may be difficult to provide online support, but there are thousands and thousands of other articles for the region you point out that have the support needed to be included in Wikipedia - they are able to follow the criteria for inclusion of articles. It is not my intent to have the article removed; only to have it meet Wikipedia criteria. You are right about one thing, I have made up my mind; however, not about what you have indicated. The only thing I am sure of is, currently the article fails to meet Wikipedia criteria. You have a chance to rectify that situation by adding the support needed to insure its long-term addition to Wikipedia. Best of luck. reddogsix (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @reddogsix obviously this article was posted on Wikipedia 2 weeks before the news item was published in The Tribune Newspaper. Tribune obviously copied the File:OLABISI JOHNSON.jpg from Wikipedia without requesting permission from the copyright owner: me. Since material published on Wikipedia are not covered by Nigerian copyright laws, by publishing the said picture on Wikipedia, I have since waived the rights to this image. I request the immediate undeletion of the said image on these grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) — Lyteon01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment - @Lyteon01 - You have not shown you are the owner of the image. The image may have been published elsewhere before you submitted it to commons - before you write me back and say I am accusing you of this, I am only telling you what is the weakness in your argument. There is a very simple way to establish ownership, all you need to do is follow the instructions in WP:DCM. Once you have established yourself as the owner you can either contact an Admin or resubmit the image in commons. My best to you. reddogsix (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is hard to follow to get a good sense of the notability claim, especially because our existing material doesn't seem to address the duties of the position of Chairman of the Ondo West Local Government. Based on what my understanding of the subject, it appears that the subject was the chair of a local administrative division of Ondo State (which is distinct from service as the equivalent of mayor of Ondo City) and would not meet WP:NPOL. The subject is currently running for the Nigerian Senate. While a redirect to the appropriate election page or list of party candidates would be in order, there does not appear to be a valid redirect target. If the subject wins his election, the page can be recreated. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geo-politically, there is nothing like Ondo City, Ondo West is a subclass of Ondo State, not Ondo City. Same way, there is nothing like Ibadan, Benin, etc. These major cities have the same traditional ruler, and have had constitutional government in the past but as at today, Nigeria does not practice monarchy and they've been disintegrated, although monarch are still highly respected according to the constitution. But that being said, anything lower than a ruler for a state fails WP:NPOL, so him being the head of the local government doesn't make him notable. In addition to that, most LGA chairmen in Nigeria are usually appointed by the state government, not democratically. I haven't looked at GNG and other claims in the article. My comment is just to address his position as LGA chairman and WP:NPOL. HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still unclear about how local government functions in Nigeria, but it appears we reach the same conclusion, that the chair of a local administrative division would not meet WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 20 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. Tone 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas Regional School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an elementary and middle school with an enrolement of 140. I cannot find any reliable external sources providing extensive coverage of the school. Copyright material has been removed from the page but the present content is minimal. The page was created by a single purpose account who reinserted removed copyright material. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable middle school. Not clear where it could be merged into the Catholic schools system. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to the education section of the applicable settlement article, per standard practice for lower schools. John from Idegon (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see notability for this middle school. It can be recreated when it becomes notable. Lorstaking (talk) 14:42, 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 11:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• There is no authoritative sources and evidence of the importance of the pop singer.--RTY9099 (talk) 19:56, 16 September 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 September 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 24 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 keep. Snow. This is not going to go any other way. (non-admin closure) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article, with its very narrow specialized scope intended to only a particular audience, is less "encyclopedic" and more "lads 'avin' a giggle browsin' a slag mag, innit" fan blog-like, therefore non-notable. Merge with Tabloid journalism. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure on what grounds I should be reviewing this AfD on, as the article seems to pass WP:GNG pretty clearly and the nomination doesn't appear to offer much more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If I've missed something please let me know. SportingFlyer talk 20:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SportingFlyer. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IDLI argument; the concept forms a genre of reality television in and of itself (and that section in this article honestly needs expansion). Some tabloidish topics deserve deletion, but the fact that we pay attention to the significant others of athletes definitely doesn't deserve deletion. Nom reasonings that denigrate those who are interested in a topic usually prejudice a keep for me universally also; be kinder in your noms. Nate • (chatter) 02:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly covered by reliable sources in sufficient detail to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 08:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes GNG as a stand-alone topic (although it needs a fair bit of work). Nzd (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article has its issues for sure but it passes WP:GNG by a wide margin. Inter&anthro (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [1] — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:02, 17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hermine E. Kleinert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability. Sources include accession records of papers and photographs in various collections. Others are catalogues where pieces have been exhibited. Certainly she appears to have been an artist competent enough to have some paintings exhibited. Beyond that the notability trail goes cold. Fails WP:ARTIST.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now. Apparently very little is known about her. If anything, her most important achievement appears to be exhibiting at the 1913 Armory Show. --Vexations (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She also showed her work at the Whitney Museum's 3rd Biennial. Going through Google Books shows a number of hits, but I can't access them. I found some information, however, to add to the article and did some cleanup. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete this. The sources prove she was notable at the time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:13, 17 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. Tone 09:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian College of Dental Health (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 references. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete According to this 2012 CBC article [2] it closed in 2010 or so ("The Ancaster school absorbed students when the Canadian College of Dental Health in Burlington closed about two years ago."). Otherwise search only finds some local coverage in 2007 [3] and passing mentions in coverage of the affiliated Canadian Therapeutic College. As a for-profit institution it has to meet WP:NCORP for commercial organizations. It didn't, and it doesn't. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 16 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sins (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 porn star recreated after AfD deletion. Still fails WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Still fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC without significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. RS references are about the PornHub publicity stunt he participated in. Other biographical sources are interviews and press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - maybe it does not qualify 100% to meets of WP:PORNBIO but meets of Wikipedia:GNG. He is almost cult in pornography industry, also well known as "bald" from Brazzers, popular even in memes outside the pornographic industry [4] and "he is consistently among the most popular porn searches[9][10][11]" - notable per Wikipedia:Common sense. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is this article any better than the one which was WP:SNOW-deleted in 2016? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Sins. Narky Blert (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Yes, after 2016 added one award and many nominations, career on the internet has begun from 2017, added to article other sources (outside the erotic industry) etc. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 13:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: the article has just been updated, Johnny Sins meets of the WP:PORNBIO with individual (no scene) AVN Award. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our notability requirements for pornographic actors. I do have good news on this front, our entry on Sarah Jackson does not mention the nude model of that name, but 4 other people. Which makes the University of Tennessee attempt to discipline for sexual harassment a student for writing "Sarah Jackson" as the name of his TA as even more ludicrous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  for example, what's encyclopedic in this sub-stub: Sarah Jackson (teacher)? You always vote for delete for porn stars, like anti-porn troll, but teacher who nothing significant in the world for you is encyclopedic?!? If no, why you do not vote for deletion for Sarah Jackson (teacher) and you're just still spamming all porn-articles on AfD with your self-acting "Delete"? Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  by the way, the article has just been updated, Johnny Sins meets of the WP:PORNBIO with individual (no scene) AVN Award. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 10:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As the keep above said, he's cult in the industry, performing in over 1000 scenes for Brazzers alone. Also one of the most searched porn stars. Even has international popularity, particularly in Turkey, due to his internet presence. AA (talk)

• Keep - At the least, he meets WP:PORNBIO with his "Favorite Male Porn Star" win at the 34th AVN Awards in 2017. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just wrong. The cited award is an AVN Fan Award, which by consensus fails PORNBIO standards. As the awards ceremony article points out, the award od given out "apart from the actual awards ceremony", demonstrating its relative insignificance.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk)
    • No, there is no officially consensus. The fact that the same people of meatpuppetry group pushing own point of view does not mean anything. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Then someone should amend the guideline to state "awards in scene-related, ensemble, and fan categories are excluded from consideration" with a link to said consensus in his or her edit summary. Until then, I stand by my !vote. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per Morbidthoughts below. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the nom accurately points out, the sourcing for this article is quite dire -- the majority of the references are laundry lists of porn award award nominations, which mention the subject's name but otherwise provide no substantive information regarding him. None of his awards meet PORNBIO standards, but are the common-as-dirt industry tinfoil trophies -- scene awards don't count, vendor awards don't count, and AVN Fan Awards have consistently been found to fail PORNBIO (eg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayden Jaymes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka (3rd nomination). Otherwise, the claimed notability is based only on 1) a breifly viral video in Turkey, where the coverage gives negligible significant information regarding the subject himself, and 2) a crowdfunding attempt/likely scam to shoot porn in space which included the subject in its planned cast list. The latter is particularly badly sourced, because the costs were greatly exaggerated (it actually costs less than $200,000 to procure a "vomit comet" ride and shoot the necessary footage; the campaign actually "raised" more than enough to do this and cover the other expenses, though no production was made; and 3) it apparently wouldn't have been the first, since a European porn company made a comparable film in 1999 and actually was nominated for a Nebula Award for it [5][6]. Far too crudulous internet press coverage is nowhere near enough to support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a fan-based award (i.e. "Favorite Male Porn Star") does not meet WP:PORNBIO, per long standing consensus, and there's nothing better. Lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:ANYBIO, and none has been presented at this AfD nor available. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is almost all trash, but the fact remains that Sins is one of the most prolific performers on the major porn websites. He doesn't qualify for an article under WP:PORNBIO, but I find it hard to believe that reliable sources can't be found that establish his notability under WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After two AfDs, such sources still have not been located... --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, better to delete the article, all porn articles to delete :D Seriously: instead of still voting for removal - look for sources, correct the article. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my understanding, WP: NACTOR#2 "Have a large fan base or a significant cult following." It applies to pornographic actors who go beyond the line of anonymity.Guilherme Burn (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see conflict of interest in various AfDs about pornographic actor. With a demand for notoriety much higher than the average of other biographies. I believe it is interesting a RfC open to the community to re-discuss WP:PORNBIO (a 2007 rule?), in my opinion there should not exist such a specific rule so. When then say "long standing consensus" this consensus is not registered in WP:PORNBIO which does not invalidate the keep vote.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't quite understand why but the news keeps covering him therefore passing the WP:GNG.[7][8][9][10][11][12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This person is arguably the most notable male porn star ever. Flooded with them hundreds 06:36, 22 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 11:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Greenhill (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 page was tagged for speedy deletion as spam by Edwardx and I agree with him. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Am not seeing anything in the 32 cited sources or searching online that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, eg "a leader in integrated omnichannel storytelling" and "a widely recognized expert and published thought leader on the subjects of branding, storytelling, film and creativity" and that's just from the lead. Edwardx (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 16 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 11:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Web Community Resource Networks (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 or evidence of notability. It may be the same organisation as Web Networks Rathfelder (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – not seeing evidence of notability. SJK (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no refs in the article, google and news returning nothing i can see. Szzuk (talk) 20:28, 23 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. Tone 09:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Holton (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 as sources can't be found. As is often the case with commercial artists, the page is basically used as an ad for his interior design company. Per our policies on advertising, I think the standard for inclusion here should be quite high. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not Notable at this time Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promo. The creator of the article, User:Anthonyn000 has a user page that is a biography of Anthony Niehaus, who is a partner in Holton Interiors. In the article/user page he is listed as Partner and Director of Sales. Vexations (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There is material here on the Batterymarch Building that ought to be merged to Custom House District (or to an article on that notable building) if this article is not kept. The same is likely true of Casa Coral by John Volk, which is said to be a designated landmark. James500 (talk) 07:07, 22 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 11:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Himei Koukotsu (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 references, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Can't find anything on him that he hasn't put out himself. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional mini-bio that was created twelve years ago by a SPA and barely touched since. Output is entirely self-released and clearly non-notable, although gets bonus points from me for naming a track on his last album from a quote by Lord Percy Percy. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 17 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kpgjhpjm 04:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party of Labour and Justice (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)

1) the article does not show the significance and importance of the party. 2) the article does not refer to external, authoritative, independent media. 3) the article has an advertising, news, non-analytical, non-detailed character. The article contains original research. The article deceives the reader and misleads the reader. by rules, the article needs to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.210.210 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Cleanup this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep party has won seats at both national and local level. It should be improved but it is clearly a notable topic.--TM 15:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nom has discussed some problems with the article but there is no dispute about the notability. Kraose (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not really seeing most the problems the IP author of the nom has claimed to exist in the article. No question about the notability either - has 3/110 seats in the national parliament. The article should be improved though - most sentences are unsourced and most of the refs are not from independent outlets. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Here's a google books search for the russian-language name of the party [13]. As you can see by the number of books in the query, there's clearly enough scholarship on the topic which means there's both notability for the article and accessible means of improving the article. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep having multiple members in a national parliament clearly demonstrates "significance and importance", even in Belarus. The article needs improvement, not deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please read WP:BEFORE before you nominate another article. The article needs improvement but clearly passes NORG having won election at multiple levels of government, you can't say there's never coverage about this and that satisfies WP:NEXIST. It also seems your attempt to delete it at ru-wiki is not successful.. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A political party with representation on multiple levels of government is self-evidently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 20 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 merge to R (programming language), per WP:ATD. Regarding, My encyclopedic purpose is to document the RStudio Addins functionality, please note that what you're describing is WP:HOWTO, which is not an appropriate reason for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Datasets.load (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)

Minor software product, does not appear to be covered by reliable independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that this software product can be considered of sufficient notoriety, it has over 2,000 downloads a months, putting it in the 9th percentile of most popular package, and it is also preinstalled by universities in their R environments (I included references for this). I would very much appreciate any suggestions on how to better make my case. --Aditisrinivasan (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A good option would be to rewrite R_(programming_language)#Packages as an alternative place to put a more concise summary of the information. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete This is a massively popular package. It's difficult to do much with R without using it. However, is that encyclopedic? I see little scope for an encyclopedia article here which could be any more than the same user material already available. Certainly the article as it stands makes no attempt to do any such thing. There is a little scope for discussion of the problem of loading wild datasets in general, and how the R world addresses this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a discussion on the problem of loading wild datasets, with a stronger reference to R_(programming_language). My encyclopedic purpose is to document the RStudio Addins functionality (I also edited the RStudio page), because I believe it is important functionality, especially for newer users. --Aditisrinivasan (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section R datasets which explains the standard R handling of datasets and positions the package against that. --Aditisrinivasan (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, only a one-line mention in a single blog. (It simply isn't true that it's difficult to do much with R without it; it wasn't released until December 2016, by which time R was already one of the most popular statistics packages in the world. I can only think Andy Dingley is confusing it with something else..??) Qwfp (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that R has been used a long time without it, at the same time, the number of R users has grown substantially since 2016, part of that is increased accessibility, perhaps mostly due to RStudio, that was also the impetus for writing this article, I also added a section on RStudio Addins to the main RStudio page. This is the encyplopedic purpose, to document this functionality, which is important to users and especially newer users with less experience with CLI. I agree that perhaps eventually it could be merged, but I would appreciate it if I could grow out the article a bit, and then perhaps eventually merge with others. --Aditisrinivasan (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• CoI notice, I am the author (of the package). If this article were to not be deleted, I would be happy to help improve the quality and make it of more general encyclopedic value. --Bquast (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in reduced form to R (programming language). Clearly not notable on its own, but apparently important in the context of the programming language. Sandstein 11:12, 24 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. Tone 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Negeri 3 Manonjaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A junior high school which is not notable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are thousands of similar SMPs across Indonesia. No indication of notability whatsoever.--Darwinek (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there isn't even a section for education in Tasikmalaya Regency or a list of schools. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:55, 17 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 keep. The article has been updated. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle (UK TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

In the eight years that the article has been in place, not a single usable source has been found (only IMDB and a dead piracy site, besides primary sources) and notability has not been established, so I’m nominating it on notability grounds. Thank you. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator now that all deletion supporters have recanted. Not sure if it would be kosher for me to close it myself. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Creating AfD per request, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I searched for and found some sources that would be expected for such a series. "Chronicle: A Glimpse of TV Heaven · British Universities Film & Video Council". bufvc.ac.uk. Retrieved 16 September 2018. and Nicholas, Sian; O'Malley, Tom; Williams, Kevin (2013). Reconstructing the Past: History in the Mass Media 1890–2005. Routledge. ISBN 9781317996842.. I vaguely remember watching it once as well. It's the sort of series where you watch it to learn about serious topics and the series itself is not relevant. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat strong delete. I don't see a way we can improve this article. There's no strongly related articles we can merge to, plus, that show died decades ago. It's unlikely someone will ever visit it, so why waste any time improving it with whatever's left of info about it? Techy Halnerd (speak) 16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article is a mere two sentences long and does not say very much. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  it was a much longer article as shown here before it was slashed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction: it was exactly the same size of an article, and a long list of WP:INDISCRIMINATE airdates and titles more suited to a database. If you can add information (not just raw data) about each episode, go for it, but from what I can tell, there is no information about a majority of them. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has reliable sources book sources as shown above and as it was screened on the BBC when there were only 3 tv channels in the UK it is bound to have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I had another look. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the best known UK programme was the BBC's documentary series Chronicle." and "Chronicle was a successful BBC television series which ran for over 25 years" suggest that it was relevant. I have also found that it was created by Magnus Magnusson, and there are citations for this. WILLIAM TINNING. "Magnus Magnusson has cancer Journalist and author 'in good fettle' but cancels appearances." The Herald. Herald & Times Group. 2006. HighBeam Research. 16 Sep. 2018 <https://www.highbeam.com>. and "Magnus battles cancer." Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland). MGN Ltd. 2006. HighBeam Research. 16 Sep. 2018 <https://www.highbeam.com>. Overall I think this is a keep. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Obviously notable series which was a landmark in early Television treatment of archaeology. Is now being expanded with strong WP:RS's. The article was merely neglected. That is no reason for deletion. WP should have an article covering this influential series. Simon Adler (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NTV Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. Chronicle was considered one of the flagship programmes on the BBC and it ran for 25 years - [14][15] if that isn't notable you can very well delete 90% of all TV show articles on Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite right Hzh. If we start to delete articles on the grounds of 'popularity', and being 'forgotten' we are on a slippery path indeed. I suspect the issue is the age demographic of WP readers, who simply have not heard of the series, being too young. Well let's delete every TV programme article which was made prior to 1980? Its the same logic. Simon Adler (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The IP nominator of this deletion also removed a big chunk of content that is valid for television show, it would seem that he or she is unaware of the guidelines for television and deletion criteria. For example the nominator is supposed to check for sources themselves per WP:BEFORE, and the sources in the article do not determine the notability per WP:NEXIST. There is a reason why IP editors cannot nominate article for deletion. Hzh (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hzh: Registering an account imparts no magical knowledge or expertise that longtime anon editors lack, but please do a more thorough check of my browser search history. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The following vote to Keep and Improve was posted to the article’s talkpage before this AFD page was created: 67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Chronicle was a well-respected series and is considered a landmark in TV's first forays into archaeology. I have provided a provisional source from a book published by the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, which discusses the series in some depth. From a cursory search there are other independent sources discussing the series and it's impact. It would appear to be notable. I do remember watching it as a child. Keep and improve. I would advise against deletion. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I never doubted that it was on the air or that people watched it; I doubted whether anyone wrote about it, given the article’s long history of no reliable sources. If they can be found even with a “cursory search,” I’m at a loss to explain the total lack of editor interest. But thanks! —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's just been forgotten which is a shame. WP is a huge virtual warehouse, and it has unvisited, and unloved corners. We could fix the article up so it is fit for purpose. Appreciate the response. Thanks, Irondome (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It aired on the BBC nationally for 25 years. Ridiculous nom; so it isn't Doctor Who. If it stayed on the air that long, people were interested in watching long enough to keep it on the air that long. We have "26-and-out" literal toy commercials that most kids didn't care about, but they still get an article here because some kid cared about them.Nate • (chatter) 02:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mrschimpf: I feel like I keep saying this, but the issue isn’t whether people were interested; it’s whether sources have covered it in-depth. For instance, Bravestarr cites news stories and DVD reviews; it may not be as notable as Doctor Who, and I’ve never even heard of it, but that gets an article here because RSes have written about it specifically. On the other hand, I would say Spiral Zone gets an article here solely because no one’s bothered to delete it yet, assuming the sources it cites are the best we can do. For all I know, everyone on the planet except for me grew up watching Spiral Zone, but if none of them ever produced anything that discusses it in any meaningful capacity, it shouldn’t have more than a mention in the project.

  All of which is to say, please keep arguments focused on coverage of the subject. Longevity and popularity don’t matter without it. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So will you now withdraw the nomination given the sources found? Hzh (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Undoubtedly they did and sources have easily been located, suggesting you didn't perform WP:BEFORE before the nomination. I'm getting tired of AfD's for longtime shows just because 'nobody watched this and sourcing is thin'. By design, educational programming usually isn't going to get as much coverage as primetime entertainment programming. Please consider as such for future noms. Nate • (chatter) 13:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't help that many appear to have the strange idea that if sources can't be easily found online, it doesn't exist. That is particularly problematic for older shows whose coverage may not be archived online. Coupled with an ignorance of the guideline (which clearly stated that such programmes are likely to be notable), and an inability to conduct searches properly, it means that others would have to do the work for them, and spend time discussing things they don't need to. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hzh: Likely to be notable ≠ actually notable. But yes, I bow to your Google-fu regarding subjects I’m unfamiliar with, and I withdraw my support to delete (I can’t withdraw the nomination because it does have other “delete” votes). Not sure where you get the idea that this volunteer work is compulsory, though, and I would not have been able to get this article into its current state myself anyway. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mrschimpf: Why would educational programming be designed to receive less coverage? Wouldn’t it be the more important programming? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:HEY. The article has now been properly sourced and cleaned up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Now that the article has been completely rewritten, I take back my original nomination. Techy Halnerd (speak) 06:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am happy to withdraw my call for a deletion now that the article has been tidied up a great deal. Vorbee (talk) 07:46, 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. Tone 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinay kuyya(channel) (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:WEB. Non-notable YouTube channel, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is having significant coverage about the channel and the sources are from notable news sites like times of india and deccan chronicle. Instead of deleting tag you can add artical improving tag.Iamheentity (talk) User:GSS

• Delete - an interesting case, but I'm opting for a delete vote. The channel has accrued coverage in WP:RS, but this coverage (including the Times source, which is filed under a Hyderabad News tab) is strictly regional in regards to Hyderabad. One source (the Deccan Chronicle) is also not independent as it is based around an interview with one of the interviewers. This being said, I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should be applied here, as the channel only has 87,000 subscribers (TOI source says 63,000) and 20 videos (according to Mirichi9). This is a trivial amount by YouTube standards; as an editor who has created three articles about YouTube channels, the least subscribed to channel I wrote about (that of Jesse Cox (YouTuber)) has 963,000 subscribers, and he is considered a small to medium sized channel when compared to his contemporaries. In short, I feel it is subject that is not notable enough for an encyclopedia despite its reliable-yet-regional coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-We are an encyclopedia.And, per nom.∯WBG^converse 05:49, 17 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 keep per WP:SNOW. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and is an example of WP:NOTNEWS. There was even a whole article on Eminem's other feuds in his 20-year career, so while this isn't an article about a feud but a song that's part of one, it shows how routine it is that he does this. Although this song is not on the album, it's clearly related to Kamikaze so any lasting information can be placed there, and if this reaches the level of his Ja-Rule/Benzino feud in 2004 it can be mentioned on the main biography as well. I can assume that the defenders of this article will dump a million links about this song as part of the defence, but that is WP:NOTNEWS, they're all from the same time and saying the same thing Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Keep. I'm not sure why you think this song is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. There is significant coverage of reliable sources that aren't just press releases and news reports.[16][17][18][19]. It's not clearly related to Kamikaze either because this song and the album have nothing to do with each other since the song is a product of the feuding between Eminem and MGK, which is irrelevant to the album. It is debatable that the feuding might be a publicity stunt to boost sales, hence causing some to think the song is directly connected to the album, but there is no evidence of that. This article is about the song not its surrounding feud and reactions, it is not just news and is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The article does not look like it's written in news style and even so, it can be expanded and improved further rather than deleted. Besides, it's only been two days since the song's release and it has already received sufficient coverage, passing WP:NSONGS - "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" which is just an iteration of WP:GNG. The editor whose username is Z0 15:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NALBUM, #1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Z0's comment: the song has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, e.g. XXL Mag and Variety --Chumash11 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NSONGS in particular the WP:GNG passing coverage of the song in multiple, independent reliable sources as stated above, so it's a keep. JC7V-constructive zone 17:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of sources and only more coming. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How is this any more notable than Killshot? Robvanvee 10:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for obvious reasons. More than enough reliable sources, it now holds a YouTube record for views in 24 hours, and by next week it will probably have charted on the Hot 100. Doesn’t make sense to delete it.Trillfendi (talk) 16:27, 17 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. Tone 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jahnavi Ellore (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:NACTOR and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:39, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems to be a non-notable actress with next to no in-depth coverage concerning her; this indicates (per nom) a failure to meet WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete-Too soon.Per nom.And, TOI is now reprinting promozine-sites?∯WBG^converse 05:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review it once again. added reference to the subject. Iamheentity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamheentity: I have removed those sources you added because they're not reliable. Please see WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nom. Strikerforce^Talk 14:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - two of the sources are direct cut-and-past copies of each other, probably both read from the same press release. No ref for the supposed award. Fails WP:ACTOR  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Eagleash (talk) 05:47, 22 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. Tone 09:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Radermacher (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Peter Dengel. Originally User:OberRanks (now banned for fabrication of content and sources) had, in Das Boot and in this article, claimed that a character in that film was based on Alfred Radermacher (as he had claimed other characters were based on actual U-96 crew members). But it was all unsourced and that has now been removed. Now that the article has been stubbed to remove all the unsourced and OR material, what we are left with is the bare fact that Radermacher served on the U-boat that was the inspiration for Das Boot. I don't see that that confers notability, and I see no other notability in this article. The only remaining source (now that the one almost certainly fabricated one has been removed) is just Radermacher's service summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of a walled garden built around the notion that crew members of that particular U-boat are notable for their alleged one-to-one correspondence with characters in the book, which would be fallacious even if such a correspondence existed (it apparently doesn't). Apart from that, the subject clearly fails WP:SOLDIER (didn't even command a boat in battle), and most certainly fails WP:GNG. Note that a bare-bones outline of his career could probably be reliably sourced from books such as Busch & Röll, Der U-Boot-Krieg, but that's just routine catalog listings of all boats and commanders, so per "not indiscriminiate information" those listings alone won't imply notability either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oberleutnant zur See not sufficient for WP:SOLDIER. While being featured / being the inspirations of a movie/book can confer notability (by dint of resulting SIGCOV) - it does not appear to be close to the case here. A redirect to Das Boot is perhaps possible, though that article at the moment doesn't mention this individual and the association of this individual with that film/book is un-sourced at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed the mention of him from Das Boot along with the other crew in these edits, as it was all unsourced and all added by chronic fabricator OberRanks. Although the book and film were inspired by the real life U-96, there appears to be no evidence that the characters were based on the real life crew. My guess is that OberRanks simply assumed that each character was based on the real crew member of the same rank/position. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as the connection is un-soruced (or OR) - then certainly a redirect is not in order. OberRanks's OR(?) might have been his own - or based on some (possibly unreliable sources) - in my BEFORE I do see some sources for this - it seems Nordwest-Zeitung (regional newspaper) did run a piece or two tying them together - here and here - and there is this podcast. So it is possible possibly to source this if someone were so inclined (does not seem critical for Das Boot, but possible). Regardless - for the AfD, I don't see how this passes notability regardless (a redirect possibly plausible if this gets reintroduced to Das Boot with good sources (which I'm not sure Nordwest-Zeitung would be)).Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that local newspaper article cites Radermacher as a kind of expert witness about what life on the real U-96 was like, but it certainly doesn't contain any literary analysis of the relationship between him, as a person, and his fictional counterpart in the novel or film. The whole piece is just about a comparison between the way events on U-96 were fictionalized in the movie and the way they were presented in some other guy's private diary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER on rank, awards or capital ship command grounds, and doesn't appear to have been in command of a U-boat that sank any shipping, which might have helped with notability. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 20 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 keep. Tone 09:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Mid-American Conference men's basketball season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article should be moved back to draft space. No noticeable modifications were made from original article that was moved to draft space. Fbdave (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The season doesn't start for two months, more information will be filled in soon, but the subject is clearly notable and it belongs in mainspace where more people will see it and edit it to update it. Smartyllama (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The conference media day is in about a month and college basketball preview magazines started to hit newsstands about a week ago. We are essentially in the run-up to the season so it doesn’t make much sense to me to delete now and recreate in a short period of time. Rikster2 (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above, though this article is more like a draft than an actual article, more info will be coming soon. FWIW the conference has released its schedule. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:17, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's not too soon for an article; it could be expanded now and it starts in less than 2 months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:20, 20 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 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Zero WP:RS , quick search only found PR sources - fails WP:GNG let alone CORP
• Spam, previously deleted at the correct title InterProse, recreated here by WP:SPA / WP:COI . Widefox; talk 12:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional article, and like nom unable to find independent sources Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:07, 18 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. Tone 09:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Gavali (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 mixed martial artist - does not meet WP:NMMA PRehse (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject is a Sports personality. It is advised not to delete the article but to improve it.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a sports personality is not grounds for notability. Please state what notability criteria you believe he meets and show the sources that support your claim. Papaursa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject is not notable MMA fighter and have not fought in any tier one promotion events. Fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Papaursa (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He definitely doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He also lacks the accomplishments in BJJ to meet WP:MANOTE. I don't believe WP:GNG is currently met since the bulk of the coverage is routine sports reporting or is focused on where he trains. If additional significant independent coverage of him in reliable sources can be shown, I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 15:23, 18 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 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Northwave (business security) (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)

Unable to find any significant sourcing with independent analysis or depth as per WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 12:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no refs in the article, google, news and newspapers not returning anything. Szzuk (talk) 20:16, 23 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. Tone 09:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata (company) (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)

Sources are the usual promotional churnalism - no real independant sourcing and significant analysis for WP:NCORP Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with nominator. The sources I see come down to brief mentions and non-independent coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - no good references; just press releases, CrunchBase-like directories, and one of their patents. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:23, 20 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 11:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Plenty of mentions and listings as a contributor here and there. Plenty of advertisements for books but nothing that talks about her from reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cannot find enough in-depth coverage in a search independent of the article. Article had signs of falsified/ puffed up sources and claims.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete founded a new and non-notable or , at least, not-yet-notable journal. My searches found a brief mention in Women's Studies Quarterly that described her as a "textile theorist." Lede calls her a "curator" but doesn't say where. There are many museums of textiles, and major museums have curators of textiles; perhaps she had curated some exhibits, but it's not a claim like "curator of textiles at the V & A" would be. I agree with ThatMontrealIP that this has a PROMO feel; Certainly text has a lot of woefully inadequate citations. And, well, I'm just not finding notability. Feel free ot flag me to revisit is somebody sources it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• About a hundred library holdings: [20]. GScholar h-index of at least 5: [21]. There do seem to be sources saying she won the ALPSP/Charlesworth Award for Best New Journal in 2005: [22]. Some coverage: [23] James500 (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC) Academic at Goldsmith's College, University of London: [24] [25]. Curator of the modern part of the "Subversive Stitch" exhibition at the Cornerhouse Gallery, Manchester, 1988 (see Cornerhouse): [26] [27] [28] [29]. James500 (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Library holdings are not an indication of notability. Other sources you insclude in the list above are very, very poor, passing or trivial mentions. For example you cite Maxine Bristow's personal web site as a source, and when I go there it is a personal website with the sentence "Pennina Barnett (Senior Lecturer, Department of Art, Goldsmiths, University of London)". That is not a source. Just because someone prints her name in a sentence, it does not make the source usable for notability. We are not looking for quantity of mentions at all, but rather a minimum quantity of high quality sources. Provide some high-quality sources and your argument to keep would have weight. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing to keep. I am merely providing information, mainly because someone said that they wanted to know where she had been a curator. I have no opinion about whether she is notable at this time. Library holdings are an indicator of notability if they are large enough. If there were a thousand holdings, that would be conclusive proof of notability. I express no opinion about a hundred at this time. Likewise, h-indexes are used for WP:PROF. I express no opinion about whether a h-index of 5 is sufficient at this time, I merely observe that she has one. James500 (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unique words such as names of museums and universities sometimes help turn sources up in searches, but in this case I, like you, am finding mentions and work she has done, not notability as we define it on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the Wikipedia page that mentions library holdings as contributing to notability. We don't go on invented criteria here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:11, 23 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 keep. Tone 09:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. The article's references aren't reliable sources, and I haven't found any reliable sources. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 11:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private and completely wrong opinion by user "wumbolo". Why didn't he improve the article instead of pushing for the destruction of knowledge? --L.Willms (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is one of the top music notation software programs. Sources can be difficult to find because of the ambiguous name, but there are at least three additional reviews that can be used to improve the article: [30] [31] [32]. This passes WP:GNG. Bradv 15:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source is not a review. wumbolo ^^^ 15:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep was WP:BEFORE even done? On top of the two above, a quick books search finds The Instrumentalist (magazine) Volume 62 - Page 114, that passes WP:GNG but I agree sources are scarce. Widefox; talk 16:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like very routine coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 21:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although this one appears borderline notability, enough sources have been identified and it's improved. WP:BLUDGEON is to be aware of on all these AfDs. Widefox; talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of bludgeoning, and that's why I never reply the same thing. However, maybe you should be also aware of it. wumbolo ^^^ 08:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "routine" isn't what you think it is. WP:ROUTINE is only for people and events. You've linked it in another software AfD, so it's clear you incorrectly mean that there and here, which does not apply to any of these software AfDs. See WP:BLUDGEON ..sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. .. . (See also WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo) Widefox; talk 12:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you reply again. How is that not bludgeoning? WP:ROUTINE is specifically for events (not even people), but it can be applied when the word routine appears in other policies and guidelines (which is at WP:NCORP among others). And I'm aware of the ANI thread, and can refute each one of your aspersions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't understand bludgeoning? I'm bludgeoning on my own !vote now? Do you desire to restrict me commenting on my own !vote?! If by your own words it's "specifically for events", why did you link it [33] for a software/product article when it doesn't apply in your own words? Widefox; talk 15:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What?! I said that it can be applied. What can be routine except events? People aren't "routine". And WP:ROUTINE nicely explains what "routine" means. I can cite whatever policy or guideline I can if I can prove that it applies to the subject in question. wumbolo ^^^ 15:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) and yes, the issue is linking to the wrong guideline for the AfD. (It links there to the policy WP:NOTNEWS which broadens it). The correct guideline being Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) where reviews like [34] are not routine, no. Widefox; talk 15:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call that review you linked routine. wumbolo ^^^ 15:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While picking minor faults in sourcing in these AfDs, you've lost the overview, which is you're way off, against consensus. Do you not see that? What's the sucssess rate and the approval from other editors? We don't agree. I think my !voting is 100% with consensus on these AfDs. That's that. Until the disruption is addressed by ANI, stop BLUDGEONING the process. Widefox; talk 16:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're worried about voting with consensus, not with making good arguments? And my intention has never been to bludgeon, no need to ask me not to. wumbolo ^^^ 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that, complete straw man. My point being consensus is clear at these AfDs, and you're going against it. You seem to be plowing on with more AfDs, despite an active ANI with no sign of an end to this disruption. Widefox; talk 18:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Bradv/Widefox - I've added a cite for Bradv's first and confirmed all three on Wayback. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Widefox; talk 22:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It's one of the leading and most established music notation programs, dominant in Germany, where it's widely used for liturgical music, among other areas. In addition to the search term above (Finding sources), "Capella (notation program)", the term "capella Notensatzprogramm" would have been helpful: capella Notensatzprogramm. I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod (Forte (notation program), Guitar Pro, Igor Engraver, Dorico, Steinberg). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Michael Bednarek: Thanks for the search term, but I still haven't found anything. Which sources are you specifically looking at? wumbolo ^^^ 08:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. Yes, it may be easier than improving the articles, but this should not be the Wikipedia way ... See also the list of AfD's, Michael Bednarek has collected. All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use. Bassklampfe (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bassklampfe: Why do you say that the article should be kept? I'm wondering since you didn't provide an argument (WP:JUSTAVOTE). wumbolo ^^^ 20:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument was All of this software is relevant to music notation history and/or current use Because of this I'd prefer a improvement of these articles instead of a removement. Bassklampfe (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request an admin closure please. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:06, 21 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. Tone 09:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I do not believe this organisation meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest. Considering it was founded in 2014, the organisation's website is feeble! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This organization is an established non-profit organization and has been featured in multiple sources including Huffington Post, CNN Money, Bustle, and referenced by tech executives. It is now linked from the Brogrammer page, since the name is a counter to the Brogrammer slang.

Comment The above comment was made by user:Techhistwriter, the creator of the article. The only other substantial editor of the article is user:Wogrammer, and I think we can assume that the latter is a CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the worthiness of the goals don't equate to notability for an organisation. I'm not seeing secondary coverage of ongoing activity to support this. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see either the neologism or the organization as being notable; it's unclear which the article is supposed to be about. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 20 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 No consensus. I recognise the sizable number of editors supported deletion on account of the utter lack of sources that this settlement exists, let alone is of sufficient character to justify an article. However, I was also persuaded by the remarks that the quarry is a red herring, because map co-ordinates are subject to an accuracy tolerance that may be obscuring a neighbouring settlement on the map. AGK [•] 19:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced, fails WP:V. Pin points to a quarry!!! Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unsourced —AE (talk • contributions) 09:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Uncited bogus nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have added some sourced information to the article. The location is a town and seems to have a large cement factory. The fact that it is difficult to find reliable sources mentioning the town is probably because such sources are in Arabic. We should be wary of adopting an English language bias and thinking that settlements in the US or UK are notable while similar size settlements elsewhere are not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We also have to be SUPER careful not to let Wikipedia-derived locations create false positives. Gulf Cement Co. is firmly and demonstrably based in Khor Khwair - that site you've found is deriving its location data from the WP pin location!!! http://www.gulfcement.ae/contact-us/?lang=en Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cwmhiraeth, both of the "citations" you added are merely misinformation regurgitated from EN-wiki. Softlavender (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note what you say. WP:GEOLAND states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." So assuming this place exists, which is difficult for us to ascertain, it should not be deleted because of lack of notability. The article originally stated "Shahawat is the name of a settlement in Ras al-Khaimah.", had no co-ordinates or map and no reference to a similarly named place in India. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cwmhiraeth, the community does not exist. It is not a "populated, legally recognized place". That you believe it exists is due to misinformation from this very EN-wiki article (which was posted in 2008 with an infobox and faux coordinates [35], all uncited) being regurgitated on the "citations" you added to the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you know that the community does not exist? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't. But how do I know it DOES exist? There's no cited source to prove it. The two sources you linked on the article both derive from WP. Other than that, there's no source that tells us it is - let alone where it is or what it is. That's why I'm saying 'delete' Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Alexandermcnabb: On aerial imagery there are some settlements/towns near the quarry and there's a chance this could be one of them. Do you have access to any large scale, possibly Arabic-language maps which might name these places? SportingFlyer talk 06:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • 'fraid not. And proving they exist on a map doesn't necessarily make 'em notable enough to be included, no? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • We're looking to confirm whether it's a legally populated place under WP:GEOLAND, which is broader than WP:GNG since Wikipedia is a gazetteer, so official maps may be helpful. SportingFlyer talk 22:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can currently make out, it's just a quarry, as noted by the nominator. The Gulf Cement Company is located near Saqr, according to its website: [36]. And this official PDF gives the location of the Gulf Cement Company as "The plant is located in Ras Al Khaimah and is strategically placed near the Saqr Port and the limestone quarry at the foot of the Hajjar Mountains.": [37] (p. 22) Softlavender (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that's Saqr Port next to the Khor Khwair industrial zone, where GCC is based. And so's RAK Cement. They crush an awful lot of rock in RAK! :P Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a hoax. » Shadowowl | talk 15:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]