< 3 October	5 October >

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. One person argued to keep, based on meeting WP:NMODEL, but failed to provide any specific evidence, i.e. sources, to back that up. The suggestion to (re)create a redirect seems reasonable, but since only one person mentioned it, I'm going to leave it out. If you want to create the redirect on your own, that's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Law[edit]

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

As per WP:NMODEL models must have had

1) Significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
I am no expert in the modelling business but I can only see one appearance in Illustrated People which is a publication that isn't on Wikipedia, an appearance in a 2017 brochure, and three Burberry adverts two years ago.

2) A large fan base or a significant "cult" following
I cannot see any indication this person has a fanbase of any note, that seems to exist more with her father Jude as a famous actor.

3) A unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment
It is clear from the article she has made no unique, prolific or innovative contributions in life. The only notable incident in her life so far was the ecstasy hospitalization at age two, which would be better served in the articles on Jude Law and Sadie Frost's personal lives.

So far, one appearance for Burberry isn't a "significant role" and WP:NMODEL requires multiple appearances in such noted publications.

Not sufficiently notable, therefore I recommend deletion until her modelling career takes off.

I note that User:PamD has argued against deletion. I would be interested to hear the thoughts of editors, this article fails WP:NMODEL and there is not a "range of sources" about this person. There is a complete absence of information about this person on the internet aside from one Burberry campaign and the fact they are the daughter of Jude Law. Clearly this is a sign that the person is best discussed in Jude's own article until they become notable in their own right.Llemiles (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Llemiles (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: regardless of NMODEL there is sufficient independent reliable coverage in several different magazines over years from 2015 to present to meet general notability. PamD 23:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMODEL and is another one of those vanity pages without much encyclopedic interest. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this as a redirect to Jude_Law#Personal_life, so if this is found non-notable, there is a clear WP:ATD Alerting the article's creator, Littlecarmen. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, article does not meet WP:NMODEL in any way. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2019 (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. Lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. I note that the article was significantly expanded during the AFD, but the additions did not sway any of the comments that came after. RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Olsen[edit]

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

Non-notable adult actress. Written like self-promotional spam without sufficient references demonstrating notability. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC) Added link to establish notability --Garver1UofA (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. References are junk and an independent search for RS coverage yielded a brief mention in VICE. Minor awards would not have satisfied any version of the now superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. No good sources to support WP:ENT or WP:BASIC notability. • Gene93k (talk) - References include direct interviews, they are solid sources. --Garver1UofA (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable performer. The coverage in Vice is just a passing mention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO if it was still extant, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornagraphic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's kind of weak that one of the top sources is her own Twitter feed. Michepman (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2019 (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 06:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evelina Simonaho[edit]

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

Sources provided go nowhere near demonstrating notability, and nothing else I can find does either. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've searched for sources but can't find anything that would make her meet WP:GNG, and she's only had minor roles (in a couple of notable and several non-notable films and TV shows) which means WP:NACTOR is nowhere near being met. --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 5 October 2019 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Weiss[edit]

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

Survived PROD last year because it has sources. One is the subject’s own website, one is her publisher’s website, one is dead, and one is a Wikipedia article that does not mention her. Notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Writing a book (or co-authoring books) does not, in and of itself, establish notability. What is lacking as to this article subject is significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, per WP:BASIC. I couldn't find any. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. -DM

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. RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rules (game)[edit]

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

I found no proof of this game existing. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This very much seems like something that was WP:MADEUP. The ridiculously generic name of this claimed game makes it pretty much impossible to do an adequate search for sources, so I'm going to have use the fact that the article was created without any as a sign that this is either not real, or utterly non-notable. Rorshacma (talk)
Delete I can't find any sources, you'd think the strange nature of the game, which involves playing on a 64 foot square grid, would get some sort of coverage if it were real. The use of terms such as "Tip" and "rod" in the description of the game ("with the aim of getting one's tip through the other stick's space between the slack (the hair) and the rod (the wood)") also leads me to believe this is some sort of prank, and should be added to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia upon deletion. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 11:49, 10 October 2019 (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 Suman Pokhrel. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Pokhrel bibliography[edit]

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

A list of works by Suman Pokhrel, none of which are individually notable; those that have standalone articles are also up for AFD discussion right now. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. Appearing more and more like an attempt to promote the author.Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the other promo articles were to be kept, a separate bibliography article accomplishes nothing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suman Pokhrel. This is content that would be more appropriately housed on the article about the author.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suman Pokhrel as per WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 13:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, yes, merge to Suman Pokhrel as above Alex-h (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2019 (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 has emerged since the relist. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Fiorito[edit]

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

Non-notable. Doesn't deserve a page at WP. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Beasteggs (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better. There is an article on the Italian Wikipedia, which is a lot longer and cites a lot more references than this — but given what a cursory attempt this is, it's fairly clear that the creator's intention had less to do with writing a proper article about a notable politician and more do do with shining a floodlight on the corruption allegation that they chose to single out as the only thing they said about him at all besides "he exists". This is giving the allegation WP:UNDUE weight, however: people who were not already notable before being accused of a crime do not clear the bar on the accusation itself. Properly contextualized in a longer, properly sourced article which properly establishes that he was already notable in the first place, we're allowed to mention criminal allegations — but we do not create articles just to foreground untried and unconvicted criminal allegations as the basis for a person's notability in and of itself. But I cannot read Italian, so I cannot determine whether the Italian article actually establishes that he would clear our notability standards — being sindaco (i.e. mayor) of a small town is not particularly promising, and the Italian article problematically includes ten references to YouTube videos, which is ten more than any Wikipedia article should ever be citing. So I'm not 100 per cent certain that he would be notable even with a full translation of the existing Italian article, and would need to see the actual finished product before I gave my final verdict on that — but in the meantime, what I am 100 per cent certain of is that if a stub that's just 37 words long devotes nine (or 25 per cent) of those words to calling the subject corrupt, that's wildly inappropriate and needs to be deleted on WP:BLP grounds. So even if he is actually notable enough for an article, this version should still be blown up and restarted from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Hello, thanks for the long comment. Well, I didn't mention the 'corruption' part only to highlight that 'he exists' and is 'corrupted'. But when I looked him up, max of the sources only talked about his corruption. If that's the problem, I think I can delete that part and expand more, adding more substantial information on the subject. Otherwise, okay to let it be thrashed and built again as suggested.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 05:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:COAT. Right now, the allegations, not the biography, are highlighted. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to pass WP:NPOL (if we assume Italian regional councils = state parliaments) and WP:GNG in Italian sources from the Italian wikipedia alone ([1], for instance, and another newspaper interviewed his mother. See also [2] and [3]. Possible it's a WP:BLP1E, though, and terrible stub as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with a fully-rounded article that was properly written and properly sourced and made a clear WP:NPOL-passing notability claim — but the WP:BLP sensitivities here, namely the complete and total focus on a corruption allegation to the total exclusion of any discernible substance about any other aspect of his political career whatsoever, mean we can't keep this in its current form just because somebody might eventually get around to improving it. If nobody's prepared to tackle improving it immediately, then we have to delete it and wait for somebody to properly write and properly source a better article, because it can't stand in this form. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd do it, but I'm not great with the Italian language.Still, he's clearly notable enough for Wikipedia, and the WP:BLP problems are mitigated by the fact he's at least arguably a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and what appears to be his sentencing was apparently widely publicised. It's kind of unique, this one, since I think notability's so clearly satisfied, but the article is incredibly short and poorly written, as opposed to the usual WP:GNG where notability is the primary concern. SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the problematic version would not prevent somebody from writing the good version afterward, though. Deletion isn't a permanent ban on the subject ever being allowed to have an article; it's just a judgement on the version of the article that's currently in front of us, and I believe the BLP implications here are serious enough to warrant the WP:TNT treatment if nobody's prepared to tackle repairing them right away. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your record at AfD, but I disagree with you pretty substantially here. In general, we delete articles that either fail WP:GNG and WP:NOT. While short and poorly written, this subject currently passes WP:GNG/WP:V, and therefore WP:STUB. He also passes WP:NPOL arguably (with the argument being regional Italian parliamentarians are equivalent to state parliamentarians in other jurisdictions, which I have no opinion on.) I'm also not sure which WP:NOT he would fail, though it's not impossible he'd be deleted on some sort of BLP grounds. Draftifying should only be used when articles need work to pass notability or sourcing guidelines, which isn't the case here - it should not be used to quasi-delete notable yet poor stubs. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topics can also be deleted, and forced to be recreated from scratch, for reasons quite independent of their basic notability: copyright violations; creation by banned users; grossly unbalanced attack pages that are putting far too much weight on the negative aspects of the person's biography rather than the positive ones but are not being cleaned up in a timely fashion. As long as this focuses solely on the corruption allegations, while completely eliding any substance or sourcing about any other aspect of his career whatsoever, for all intents and purposes it's an attack page. We only have two options here, clean it up immediately or enact TNT, and "keeping it in its existing form just because it might eventually get cleaned up someday" is not on the menu. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned it up a bit, adding his parliamentary career and changing the allegations to discuss his sentencing. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:DRAFTIFY to allow time for reliable sources to be found to establish notability and bring balance (WP:BALANCE) to the article - Epinoia (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as a stub. Easily passes WP:GNG. AFD is not a witch hunt for stubs.4meter4 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbiness isn't the problem here. WP:PERP is. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bd2412 T 12:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not really sure WP:UNDUE is a problem here, he was ordered to return €1.09 million worth of public funds, sentenced to almost three years in gaol, stereotypes of Italian politics aside, this is not a common occurrence. Nicknamed "Batman", still discussed in the Italian press in the context of his corruption. Highly symbolic of the Berlusconi era. Clearly meets WP:PERP #1 (national) and #2. No problems with WP:RS, plenty of coverage over multiple years in newspapers of record. --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pasta Checkpoint[edit]

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

Potentially a hoax, no sources, no evidence of it actually having occurred after a bit of research. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. That's two AfD mistakes from me in one day. Whoops x2. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2019 (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 07:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tranquility Calendar[edit]

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

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this article for deletion because I cannot find any mention of it in any reliable source, other than the source cited in the article, which was written by the calendar creator. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If lack of sourcing is the issue, then would a quick trawl through the results of a quick google search, such as the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Historical Metrology, Weights, and Measures, provide sufficient links to add to the Sources section? If not, then instead of outright deleting the article, perhaps it could be merged into an article on similar 13-month-plus-a-day calendar proposals? DataPacRat (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem as I see it is that lots of people like to create their own new calendars, which never receive any serious consideration by any ruler or group that has the slightest chance of implementing it. These hobby calendars really have no place in Wikipedia, neither as independent articles, nor as being mentioned in any articles. I am not familiar with the Encyclopaedia of Historical Metrology, Weights, and Measures. If it is a reputable publication, and someone could gain access to a copy (rather than a tiny Google Books clip) then it might be a good enough source to mention the calendar in some other article, such as "Calendar reform". Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Africans in the United States[edit]

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

Reliable sources don't appear to treat Horn Africans in the US as a single group, and the material here is amply covered by Eritrean Americans, Ethiopian Americans, Somali Americans, History of Somali Bantus in Maine, History of the Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term ‘Horn Africans’ seems to be some sort of neologism and the author has strung together valid and well-sourced information into a kind of synthesis which is not justified. As far as I can see ‘Horn Africans’ is not a term used in any of the sources. The information in the article may be merged into Somali Americans etc as appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Usage of of "Horn Africans" in this context is not supported by reputable published sources. Article also fails notability guidelines. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with African immigration to the United States. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no given source verifies WP:V the scope of the article's scope, therefore it may be unsuitable as a standalone article. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, The idea built in the article does not deserve to be deleted but lacks a lot of work, better merge to other related articles like African immigration to the United States. Alex-h (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~"Horn African" as a term seems colloquial.~~ Article looks to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No results for "Horn African" from an Ngram search. No results from a "Horn+Africans" Jstor search.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some usage of the term "Horn African" in academic works (eg Journal of Oromo Studies and 12 uses in Seeking Salaam: Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Somalis in the Pacific Northwest (2011). However, article remains WP:SYNTH.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Africans in Scandinavia[edit]

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

No clear reason for this article to exist when we have separate articles on each origin/host country pairing. Reliable sources don't appear to treat Horn Africans in Scandinavia as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article indicates that most of the information about ‘Horn Africans’ (not a very inclusive-sounding term) is already on Wikipedia but for some reason people will be searching for ‘Horn Africans’ rather than ‘Eritreans in Norway’ or whatever. I can't see any justification for this article at all. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no given source in the article WP:V verifies the WP:GNG of the topic as a whole. It may therefore be an unsuitable topic for a standalone article unless more sources are found. Also there are already articles like Somalis in Sweden, Somalis in Denmark and Somalis in Norway. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry I think a third opinion could be good on the Somalis in Norway and Somalis in Denmark articles. The editor who created the Horn Africans in Scandinavia have deleted large amounts of WP:RS information so I reverted those edits and invited the user to discuss on the talk page per WP:BRD. However, the user simply restored the edits without reaching a WP:CONSENSUS. Any input is welcome if you have the time. A Thousand Words (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my opinion earlier at Talk:Somalis in Norway#recent removal of WP:RS information, 1Kwords. If the editor is edit warring, then they should be reported, but I will recuse myself as I'm arguably too involved in the content dispute. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry it appears that someone identified Sahasu as a sockpuppet of a banned user. My own suspicion was that this was a novel sockpuppet of Soupforone, but that turned out not to be the case. Thanks for weighing in on the Norway article. A Thousand Words (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reinstated most of the articles for Denmark section that involves crime but the Norwegians section where cordless Larry agrees can be up for further debates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails both notability as well as reliable sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia. There does not seem to be any reputable sources that reference "Horn Africans" in "Scandinavia" as a monolith. Besides, content is better covered in individual articles, this is how most reliable sources have dealt with the topic. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deklete this synth, just like its American version. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails both GNG and WP:V Taewangkorea (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2019 (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. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jarman[edit]

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

Non-notable minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Article was originally proposed for deletion, but deprodded. References provided by user who deprodded are reviews of productions that only mention Jarman, none provide significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said in my reason for removing the PROD, "it is clear from the list of stage roles he has played in the West End that he meets WP:NACTOR." WP:NACTOR#1 states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It does not state, as WP:AUTHOR does, "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series ...) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Jarman has clearly had multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions. The article is a stub, and could certainly do with expansion, but there is no doubt that he is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR#1 as he has had major roles in multiple West End productions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NACTOR.--PATH SLOPU 13:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets WP:NACTOR for the roles he has had in some major productions. Alex-h (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2019 (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. Consensus is Keep, due to sources found and improvements made to the article subsequent to nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogías feministas en el arte español[edit]

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

The article of an exhibition is based on one paragraph of text. I do not currently see notability. Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nominator's rationale no longer seems to apply, following substantial expansion of the article. I'm not an expert in this area, but it looks to me like the MAV source ([4]) and ABC ([5]) source are very good, and potentially a few others too. — Bilorv (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY as significantly improved. See diff: [[6]]. --Theredproject (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Eze[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. A BEFORE does not show significant independent coverage. Mahveotm (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mahveotm (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rot grub[edit]

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

Extremely minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are no sources outside of a handful of primary sources discussing these creatures in any depth that would denote notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the consensus reached for Aerial servant. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only passing mentions, even in fan-oriented sources. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not demonstrate notability. Barca (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Africans in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

There's no clear reason for this article's existence, given that we have individual articles on the three groups that it collects together. Reliable sources don't seem to treat Horn Africans in the UK as a group. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments in related AfDs.Mccapra (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thier is already a page for horn of Africans in the united states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_Africans_in_the_United_States, in respect to the communities close cultural relations to one another i dont see why we cant have a horn of Africans in the United kingdom page as well this article is linked to the horn of africa as a whole as their is a page dedicated to the regions and the horn africans in the united states page is also an example of that we have pages for eruopeans immigration to the united states and etcetra i dont see how see why we cant have a horn africans in the united kingdom as well--Sahasu (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The US article is now up for deletion too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in the United States. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per other deletion discussions on the same topic, usage of "Horn African" in this context is not notable nor is it backed up by reputable published sources. --Kzl55 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no given source verifies WP:V the scope of the article's scope, therefore it may be unsuitable as a standalone article. A Thousand Words (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Horn African" as a term seems colloquial. Article looks to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No results for "Horn African" from an Ngram search. No results for "Horn African" from a Jstor search.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Concannon[edit]

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

Subject certainly fails WP:NHOCKEY as a player, with only 25 games in the AHL which is well short of passing #2 and he has no preeminent honours in the ECHL, CHL nor in college to pass #3 and #4. He is currently president of the South Carolina Stingrays of the ECHL, but seeing that the league doesn't automatically grant notability for players, I assume it's the same for non-playing staff, hence the nomination. But if being president of an ECHL franchise does grant notability, I will withdraw the nomination. Tay87 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SPORTBASIC by playing at the highest level of professional roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the multiple sources requirement at WP:SPORTBASIC for rollerhockey work. Otherwise fails WP:NHOCKEY.4meter4 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the purpose of NSPORTS is the assumption of having those sources if they meet the requirements in it. By playing in RHI he played at the highest level of professional roller hockey and it is presumed he can meet GNG. Going back to the 90s for sources would likely require going to paper sources which is the point of NSPORTS, to protect those atheletes especially from before the internet's prominence who are likely to meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Djsasso. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon nomination I never once took roller hockey into consideration. I apologise for my ignorance towards this and although I cannot withdraw the nomination because of the previous delete votes I would certainly prefer if the article remained per the keep votes and their reasons. Tay87 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While my apology remains, I have to chance my stance per WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players that the article can indeed be deleted as the general opinion is RHI players should not be granted automatic notability unless they pass WP:NHOCKEY, WP:GNG or both, and the subject passes neither. Tay87 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. , Does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG. The discussion at WT:NSPORT on RHI player notability does not support the claim of automatic notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. There appears to be a strong consensus at WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players that merely playing in the RHI does not show notability.Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to Tay87, there's no reason you can't withdraw your nomination. If you've changed your mind, just strike out your nominating statement (using <s>.....</s>) and add a note right after it that you've changed your mind. The AfD can continue to run, and whoever closes this will just take your updated opinion into account.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Actually per WT:NSPORTS#Notability of Roller Hockey International players the subject fails notability so if I was to change my mind it would be to Delete. Tay87 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally neutral on this, but for the sake of whoever comes along in a week to close this, please clarify your stance. The nomination says you want to delete it, then you added a comment on 25 September saying you want to keep it, and now you're back to wanting to delete it. This is really confusing. You can make as many comments as you want, and change your mind as often as you want, but in the end, please strike out anything which you no longer stand by so it's clear to the closing admin what your desire is. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:Basically, he failed WP:NHOCKEY, hence the deletion nomination. THEN, I was informed that this guy and two Jason Clark's (Jason Clark and Jason Clarke) passed WP:SPORTBASIC as they “played in the highest professional league in roller hockey”. And I was ignorant towards roller hockey when I made the nomination for these three people. Out of guilt and remorse I attempted to withdraw my nomination of one of the Clarks but was told I could not because of the delete votes, hence my comment here. THEN fast forward to the current discussion regarding notability of Roller Hockey International players, the aforementioned highest professional league in roller hockey, where it has been determined that players who played in that league are NOT granted automatic notability and can only become notable if they pass WP:NHOCKEY, WP:GNG or both, and the subject in question passes neither. Therefore, based on these, I clarify and confirm, the article should be deleted. And this makes me all the more glad I'm ceasing AfDs. I frankly wish I never started it. Tay87 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant converage from indepenent sources. Fails WP:NHOCKEY also. Consensus at the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clarke (ice hockey) rejected that a professional athlete, regardless of their sport, was presumed to be notable. Only those mentioned explicitly under Wikipedia:Notability (sports) § Professional sports people shoud be presumed notable.—Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see how he meets any inclusion guidelines including GNG.18abruce (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetAmpere[edit]

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

Non-notable company; "news" sources appear to be press releases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

metAmpere’s lithium discovery in Cornwall is strategically important to the Uk, and is Attracting strong government support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.144.112 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have independent 3rd party sources for this strategic importance and government support? AllyD (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the bylined Plymouth Live item about the company's test drilling, the company have also uploaded a brief ITV West Country item onto YouTube [7], also about their test drilling and hopes for the future. I don't see these announcement-driven items as sufficient for the WP:CORPDEPTH requirements to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability; at best, this is WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another new non-notable corporation without much press coverage. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SoHo Experiential[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Associating with notable people does not confer a sheen of inherited notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a ad to me, as well. I agree with all the points given by Roscelese. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising, --and non-notable as well. DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we don't allow advertising and because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources: 4 refs to eventmarketer.com, a trade magazine. Note that WP:NCORP says that Trade publications must be used with great care. It's paywalled, so I can't check the sources, but routine coverage in trade magazines is not significant coverage, so likely fails the GNG. pastemagazine.com is not about SoHo Experiential but about the founders' podcast. linkedin.com should almost never be used, because it's user-generated content, which is not reliable. The lasso.io source is a press release by a software company. The economist.com source is a press release. sohoexp.com is the subject itself talking about itself, so is not a reliable source. podcasts.apple.com is about a different subject again, the founders' podcast about liquor. bizbash.com is one of the very few sources that actually discusses the subject: It describes an "interactive herb station" conceived by the subject. The activity invited guests to guess the name of herbs. The herb station consisted of glass vessels containing herbs and wooden breadboards with a written description of each herbs and the name written on the back of the board. I don't think that's material that has a place in an encyclopedia. Vexations (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The eventmarketer sources are their own writings about their clients, not stuff about them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the move to delete. There are several references from reliable sources which more than meet notability standards, and the article regards a significant 15-year-old New York marketing company with high profile clients. Superfluous "advertising" language seems to have already been removed as well. Nfdgoisn (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Keep Nfdgoisn (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pass G11 for CSD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a company that doesn't meet notability .JSFarman (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no coverage in the higher end advertising industry publications like AdWeek, and just a few mentions here and there elsewhere. Not enough for corpdepth or even gng for that matter. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet notability requirements. Tunescool (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC). Thanks![reply]
Delete Utterly fails notability requirements, I am unable to locate any reference that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Strong delete, as the given sources are extremely weak, if they're even independent. There is no, or next to no, mass media press coverage, only blogs and pseudo-news organizations that really just institutional blogs. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sichuan Airlines Flight 8633[edit]

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

Minor air incident. Fails as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Recommend renaming to "Sichuan Airlines Flight 8633 accident".--Steven Sun (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Steven Sun. It's not minor air incident. Because there are many reports about this incident, and it has been recycled as a film which is The Captain. --風雲北洋 WP※English is very difficult 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is a major incident widely reported in media and the pilots have won multiple national awards for their heroics. A film based on the incident was just released, see The Captain (2019 film). British Airways Flight 5390, a very similar incident, has had an article for 15 years. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable and received WP:SIGCOV. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is notable due to high media coverage and inspiring a motion picture.TH1980 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – commercial jetliners having windshields blown off are an extremely rare occurrence. That almost by itself makes it notable, let alone one that received decent international news coverage and now also made into a film. Not to mention the aeronautical feat of a disabled flight crew pulling off an emergency landing from an open cockpit and with half the instrument panel wrecked. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep: aircraft incidents are sufficiently rare events to be noticeable especially given the importance of air transport safety. Moreover in this one, the flight ended well and no major injuries are to be reported which is again rare case. Also, a similar incident has its own page (see British Airways Flight 5390) --G.Dupont (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Steven Sun (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the fact that one of the sources is a press release and another is a list of a320 incidents, all the sources together, especially the Reuters and CNN stories, add up to a GNG pass. Hydromania (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Deeday-UK. This is a notable explosive decompression event. Insidious611 (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep #1 you should do your own notability check first, and #2 this is among the few that survived!--H2254625 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. If a feature-length movie is made out of the incident, NOTNEWS shouldn't even be considered. Oakshade (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2019 (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. Some sources were suggested, but the other participants didn't seem to think they were sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Café Leonar[edit]

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

Article about a cafe created by a single-purpose account. Notability is not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable cafe per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find (and add to the article) two book references supporting notability. Many of the sources found in various gSearches are in German, so evaluating those as potential sources can use a German speaker. It appears that the article has sufficient references and significant coverage enough to support keeping it per general notability. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Geoff. Of the two refs you added the first looks like a passing mention and there’s no preview of the second. While the cafe may well have been mentioned here and there, I don’t think these contribute much to determining notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, Wildman's book preview is here. The Exemplarische Forschungsfelder reference, a transcript of a speech, is previewed here. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources don't seem to be enough for corpdepth, based on the ones mentioned above and the few mentions I found on top of that in a cursory google search. It is hard to argue, also, that a cafe opened in 2008 has particular cultural significance in most cases, even if catering to an interesting community. Sources would need to be extra good. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 23:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions in books don't meet the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 11 October 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flaremode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable DJ Meatsgains^(talk) 01:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and salt. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous version was speedily deleted so will come back after reviewing the sources. Also, please note that this could be a possible case of G5. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any evidence that the suggested speedy deletion reasons apply, so comments on sources and notability are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear UPE bombarded with listings primary and PR. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2019 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel On Call[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, survived PROD in 2011. This article is promotional in tone and the topic is an apparently shortlived business with no particular claim to significance. The refs provided look mostly like PR placements and passing mentions and there’s nothing very substantial here. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation: the business appears to have renamed itself as Legility (source). Perhaps sources demonstrating notability can be found under that name, but I'm inclined to support TNT for such an outdated and promotional article—I can't see much of use here which could transfer to a new article Legility. — Bilorv (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:CORPDEPTH and my standards for law firms. Its successor firm is not famous either, but I'd give the benefit of the doubt if it were re-created under that name. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2019 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Million Plan[edit]

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

The page is an interesting case of topic created by a single editor out of just a couple of sources mentioning the (never executed) plan. Since i've proposed merger into Aliyah Bet to expand the target article with relevant issues (mostly not dealing with One Million Plan itself), not much has been added on the topic but rather much of WP:SYNTH going around it and trying to link various events of the period to that (never executed) plan. I don't think that a never executed plan with one work of Bar Ilan university dealing with it specifically warrants inclusion of a stand-alone article. Convince me otherwise.GreyShark (dibra) 21:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of this thread. As previously discussed, your merger idea is based on a mistaken idea that the One Million Plan proposed illegal immigration (which is what Aliyah Bet was). You have brought no source for this claim. Forum shopping is not an appropriate response.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you - you refused considering the image on the page (not related with One Million Plan). With no images, no extended overview of generally unrelated Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries and no Aliyah topics, this article becomes a tiny stub. The topic of 1944-45 one million plan in notability is somewhat similar to Proposal for a Palestinian state in Sinai (see [8]) or Al-Rafidain Autonomy for Iraqi minorities (see [9]) - we can create articles on those topics, but is there notability to the (never-executed) plans? Certainly not. With 2 editors supporting merger into Aliyah Bet and your refusal, i guess deletion is an option on the table; i'm still considering to keep this as redirect to section of Aliyah Bet article.GreyShark (dibra) 06:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having real trouble understanding this. The article is impeccably sourced, with quotes provided throughout the sources to make it easy to verify. This appears to be a content dispute; if you don’t agree with the sources it would be helpful if you could be specific. It’s worth remembering that wikipedia does not allow original research, so your idea about Aliyah Bet needs sourcing if it is to have any relevance to this discussion.

You did a very bad or deliberately WP:SYNTH job in sourcing. Why is there no mention the plan was shelved? why do you connect it with later events (Maabarot)? while the plan was obviously not related with those?GreyShark (dibra) 07:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those would at best be arguments for clean-up, not for deletion. Zero^talk 07:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, I was wondering if there is any connection between your proposal and this article being put up for WP:GAN just a week earlier?

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the plan was never executed does not make it non notable. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain in some detail what is wrong with the current sourcing. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of the topic is richly supported by the multiplicity of high quality sources. Greyshark is correct that two editors (including his/herself) supported the merge proposal, but might have mentioned that two editors (including Once) also opposed it. Now there are three opposed (I don't think I noticed the merge proposal until now, thanks for letting me know). There is always room to discuss how topics are distributed around articles, but there is no case provided here for deletion. Zero^talk 03:31, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - another issue is that "One Million Plan" on google is giving anything except the topic of One Million Plan article - [10]. The topic is practically unrecognized by Google. The article also fails to mention it was shelved and actually was one of several plans (not "the plan").GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark, the point as to whether or not this was a shelved plan is irrelevant to the fact that it was the catalyst and precursor to the massive airlifts from Yemen and Iraq that occurred in the early 1950s, which had far-reaching effects on the entire region. Although the plan did go through some changes, the article description is mirroring the research; the plan itself is crucial to understanding how the later events came about. Havradim (talk) 06:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There's no compelling rationale to support deletion of an extensive, well-sourced article. Event notability does not depend on the event having occurred; it's more related to lasting impact and coverage, both of which are obvious from the article as it exists now. Zerach (talk) 06:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Google put this article at the top of its list when I searched for 'Million Plan'. The plan sheds useful light on the thinking of Ben Gurion and leading Yishuv Zionists in the early 'forties. I would not have searched for 'Aliyah Beta' so why hide an important article on a specific topic there? If anyone takes issue with the author's ignoring firm evidence that the plan was somehow abandoned, perhaps talk might deal with this claim in his article? Overall the article is meticulously researched and well supported by respectable references. Definitely needs to stay in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzabbit (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is, as one has come to expect from its main editor, an impeccably sourced article. The editor proposing deletion has given no cogent reason for either its deletion or merger. Aliya Bet is a different kettle of fish.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of the apparent arguments given for deletion, that the article was created by a single user and the the topic is a plan which was never implemented, are immaterial. The third argument, akin to notability, that the article had few cited references, is no longer true. ← ZScarpia 16:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are: Ari Barell, Meir-Glitzenstein, and Gil Eyal. (There may be even better sources than those, but those three at least count as three GNG-satisfying sources.) – Levivich 17:00, 6 October 2019 (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 merged to Starlux Airlines. bd2412 T 21:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starlux Airlines destinations[edit]

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

At this point, they have apparently one route only, from Taipei to Taichung. Everything else is planned for the future.There is no need for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 10:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would have gone with a bold merge, myself. Not enough for a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 11:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point of view, but if we do put it in the airline’s article, we will never know if it’s ready to stand alone. Through the process, there are potential risk of losing data or adding false informations. These informations are relevant and were announced by the chairman of the airlines which I think make these informations at least reliable. Andrew20070223 User talk:Andrew20070223· 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy WP:BOLD merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shaheen Air destinations. Obviously doesn't need a standalone article but worth mentioning in the main. Reywas92^Talk 17:54, 4 October 2019 (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. Whilst WP:NFOOTY is technically met here, the consensus in this discussion seems to be that this is an outlier case in which that guideline is not a suitable substitute for WP:GNG - which does not appear to be met. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brendy Glackin[edit]

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

I'm only seeing match reports that mentions this player as he has only played for two entire minutes from WP:FPL team in 2016-17 which doesn't seem to be enough time for this player to be eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and player is young with an ongoing career, and there's enough online sources out there to give him the benefit of the doubt re:GNG (search also under 'Brendan Glackin'). Giant Snowman 09:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we wait until notability is clear to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made an appearance in the EFL League One, shouldn't be deleted. WP:NFOOTBALL Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues Victoryboy (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2019 (AEST)

Comment - May I ask he only played for two minutes in EFL League One so that isn't really enough time to deemed notable based off WP:FPL. HawkAussie (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has been consensus to keep young players with ongoing careers, AfD/Tong Le a recent e.g. but more out there, which has yet to be rebutted via discussion so I favour consistency - though evidently many don't. R96Skinner (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 21 years and currently playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 4 Keep votes compared to 2 delete votes, but the strength of the keep vote arguments are weak. Editors are reminded that NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and where this is challenged, simply citing NFOOTY is not a valid argument for retention. Relisting to give editors voting keep time to support their vote with reference to GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 09:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why this was relisted. Passes WP:NFOOTY, I've added sources directly to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted because the sourcing issue for WP:GNG was never resolved, I believe. Passing WP:NFOOTY doesn't give it an auto Keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG which superseeds WP:NFOOTY per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q1. The references in the article do not represent WP:SIGCOV needed:

1. He graduated from Linfield Academy, so it makes it WP:PRIMARY as well

2. Just a name drop.

3. "Dylan King and Brendy Glackin were among this season's second-year scholars told they would not be getting professional deals...Glackin may not yet quite be physically ready.", not in-depth.

4. Besides the fact that signing announcements are WP:ROUTINE, "Promising Northern Ireland youth international Brendan Glackin joined St James' Swifts yesterday...In a bizarre day of transfer activity, Glackin appeared to be staying at Carrick after the Taylor's Avenue club revealed the 19-year-old had agreed a new deal. But it later emerged that the former Oldham Athletic youth player had joined Ballymena & Provincial Intermediate League side St James' Swifts." Better than 3), but not enough.

My searches show similiar sources of poor depth (most of them bring match reports), simple failure of meeting WP:GNG.

1) [11] "Brendan Glackin: A 20-year-old forward who has previously had spells with clubs including Linfield, Oldham Athletic, Carrick Rangers and St James' Swifts, also Northern Ireland U19 international."

2) [12] "And Oldham scholar Brendy Glackin tweeted a picture of the treble winner gaining further experience with the club this week.".

3) [13] "But Antrim went one ahead eight minutes from the end when striker Brendy Glackin converted a penalty, which was given for a foul on forward Mark McKee."

4) [14] "19-year-old striker Glackin has recently returned to Northern Ireland after spending two years in England at the Oldham Athletic academy."

5) [15] "Brendy Glackin was impressive for Antrim as he made one and scored one for the home county...Glackin came to the rescue again and sent the keeper the wrong way from the penalty spot to ensure a share of the spoils." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Jovanmilic97. A banner case in the argument that NFOOTY is poorly calibrated and should not be quoted in these discussions. Rockphed (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a player, whose only professional appearance was 2-minutes almost 4 years ago, in a team at the bottom of the third tier, is a banner case - more like the exception that proves the rule. And despite the lack of good GNG sources, there's certainly no lack of references about his later semi-pro career, from reliable sources ... however, they appear to be routine. The question is, how much time does one want to waste, with several people researching and arguing borderline cases to death, rather than simply establishing a black line. Current consensus appears to be let's waste everyone's time ... Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – article subject fails GNG, per source analysis above. Without WP:THREE, or two, or even one, it's a delete. – Levivich 15:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Technically he meets NFOOTY, but one 2 minute appearance is stretching the limits. The appearance was years ago and it requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL to claim he's going to get additional appearances. The fact that he doesn't appear to be close to meeting WP:GNG is the key point. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is a requirement; WP:GNG is a guideline for which there can be exceptions. A complete set of these articles can be written although some such as this would be not much more than stubs. Wikipedia will keep most of these, so can there be the occasional exception or would it be better to move football articles to a separate site (does one already exist or would a new site have to be created?) with a more clearly defined scope such as WP:NFOOTY has? Peter James (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think both. The encyclopedia should have football articles (prose, not stats, describing the most notable topics), but there should be a separate site that is the football almanac, with a wider range of topics, that could also be a complete statsbook. – Levivich 21:25, 9 October 2019 (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 Land Information New Zealand since there are no objections. – Joe (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Geospatial Office[edit]

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

I have no reason to doubt that the content was correct when written, but there are no references, I have not been able to verify the content, and I suspect that the Office has gone out of existence in a reorganisation of Land Information New Zealand. The article says the Office was a four-person unit within a division of LINZ and, combined with the lack of sources, it is questionable whether the Office was ever notable. If the content was verifiable I might have suggested merging it into Land Information New Zealand. As it is, I suggest simply converting it into a redirect to Land Information New Zealand. Nurg (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into LINZ. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2019 (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 – taking into account comments in the linked discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hutchens[edit]

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

No indication that this person meets WP:NACTOR, WP:NFILMMAKER or even WP:ANYBIO. There quite a number of sources cited and lots of film appearance listed, but the sources seem mostly trivial mentions and none of the film roles appear to have been major. I did previously asked about this at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 54#Bill Hutchens and Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 69#Non-English sources for Bill Hutchens, and also have discussed it on Talk:Bill Hutchens. I tried to find significant coverage to help clarify Wikipedia notability, but just haven't had any luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I couldn't find any--any--sources in Australia/NZ via a ProQuest news search. As the OP states, there are several citations but of the several I checked, all were at best the inclusion of Hutchens' name and certainly no substantial commentary. Also note teh significant edits to the page by 'BillhFilms', a SPA that has soley edited this page so is certainly the subject of the page with COI. Cabrils (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in the 1990s[edit]

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

missed this one -- other articles for each decade of his career were deleted. this one too is redundant and non-encyclopedic. No other major actor (e.g., see Al Pacino and Dustin Hoffman has multiple pages covering each film in depth. In any case, everything in the film summary below is covered in the film article itself. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 07:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with the other articles related to periods of Eastwood's life, it simply duplicates the main article. FOARP (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unnecessary article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All the other decade articles have been deleted. Nothing special about the 1990s to overturn those verdicts. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the fact that concerns of close paraphrasing were raised in some of the associated AFDs. ミラ P 21:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Đeletović[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. Playing pro basketball in Europe doesn't meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2019 (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. Has sources to support notability as a distinct subject. RL0919 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escalator etiquette[edit]

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

This article has a massive original research problem with it, and seems like a to-do guide for getting on the escalator. WP is not a guide, but this article is. The sources cited seem out of place as well. The lead is subpar, and does not reason too much as to why the topic is important. KingofGangsters (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is not original; instead it is quite notable as there are numerous sources which discuss and detail it; here's an example. WP:GUIDE is not a policy page and any issues of that sort are a matter of style, corrected by rewriting rather than deletion. Likewise if the lead seems subpar, this is best addressed by ordinary editing and improvement not by deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much to my surprise, this not-so-burning issue has received scrutiny from the BBC, the Washington Post, the Toronto Star, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you want this article to be kept?KingofGangsters (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Escalator#Etiquette. There's a paragraph there, and a paragraph here, and it seems to me that in the end what there is would still be a paragraph. There's no evidence this needs to be split out into its own article. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Escalator#Etiquette. I agree with Mangoe that the topic does not warrant its own article and would fit better in the article on escalators. Capt. Milokan (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a surprising number of good sources on this topic, both already included in the article as well as being presented by Clarityfiend above. I was originally going to agree with the above suggestions of merging to the appropriate section of the Escalator article, however, taking a look over there shows that article is already pretty lengthy. With that in mind, as well as the good amount of sources, having this topic as its own article seems like a reasonable WP:SPLIT. Rorshacma (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Escalator#Etiquette. That a half-page mention in a guide to London justifies a separate article for this concept is ridiculous. The main article can cover it just fine with little added length even with the new link; it is 25k characters of prose which is not too big to justify a split. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People who hog the escalator is my bête noire and I'm not alone. See toilet paper orientation. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This article is great, and there's still a lot that could be written about the subject. Shouldn't just be a section in another article. Erik Humphrey (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angad Rawal[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet NFOOTY. Sub-majors player who has apparently been a free agent since 2014. More pressingly, via GSearch I wasn't able to find high-enough quality sources to float this as a viable BLP, just stuff like LinkedIn and EverybodyWiki. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a legit player, and all information is true, in Tennessee sports nobody documents things on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGFudbalski (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC) http://www.hotstat.com/72194/teams/14103928/11751281-14104026/TEAM.html number 24 from 2009 you can see — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGFudbalski (talk • contribs) 06:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OGFudbalski, I understand that, and I don't doubt that the information is true, but merely being true is not enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. If there aren't enough reliable independent secondary sources on a topic it doesn't belong here; this is especially true since Rawal is a living person, biographies on whom Wikipedia is particularly stringent about. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems then! It can and will become a page after his surgery is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OGFudbalski (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, provided that he passes our notability guidelines. (Also, for the future, please sign your posts by placing four tildes (like this:"~~~~") at the end of them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by not having played in a league listed as fully professional or at senior international level, and there's no evidence of any media coverage independent of the subject, let alone enough to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On top of WP:NFOOTY/WP:GNG, I'm not convinced this isn't a hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 11:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - clear hoax ... 4 national teams? Article and AFD have been subject to excessive vandalism - suggest checking User:OGFudbalski for sock puppetry. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bar-lgura[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster. Fails WP:GNG, not mentioned in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real world notability, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only non-primary sources I can find upon searches are not about this minor D&D monster, but of the actual, mythological demon that the D&D version was named after. And I can't even find enough in-depth sources on the "real" creature to support an article, let alone this completely unnotable "fictional" version. Rorshacma (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2019 (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 Ntinda. Content is in the history if anyone wants to merge it. – Joe (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ntinda Vocational Training Institute[edit]

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

"About us" type of page, no apparent notability. Only receives brief/tangential mention in listed sources (or sources don't qualify as WP:RS, such as the institute's website or Google Maps), so fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Nothing better turned up in a WP:BEFORE search. creffett (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only press releases and primary sources in searches. Nothing of significance, at least in the English language, has been published to my knowledge. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 02:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ntinda - Coverage of this school is very hard to come by, as with a lot of articles related to sub-saharan Africa. There's one instance of a photo being used in news-paper coverage (please note that Google often labels stuff "press release" and "blog" without any actual reason for doing so - this is not PR/Blog coverage but a news paper story), one instance of the principal of the school being interviewed in connection with a story,and one news-channel story about a Ugandan government minister visiting the school. These all appear to be reliable sources, but clearly do not amount to significant coverage of the school sufficient to sustain a stand-alone article. However, this is clearly a real school in Ntinda, Uganda, and per WP:PRESERVE we should try to keep what's actually verifiable about it if possible. FOARP (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per FOARP. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. RL0919 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravage (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. ミラ P 19:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others, there's nothing to say other than a line or two at the proposed target. Zaathras (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallows' Eve (2016 film)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it may not be a good film, it is a legitimate one, with a C- and D-list cast including Tracey Gold and Dee Wallace. The movie is on IMDB, and streams on Amazon Prime as well as Netflix. It has been reviewed on multiple sites, such as ScreenPicks; Cinema-Crazed; MarcFusion.com. --Leflyman^Talk 18:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the first two of those reviews contribute to establishing notability. However, unless Marc Fusion is an established cinema critic, I don't think his self-published review site does. That said I think having multiple reviews is a perfectly valid way to establish WP:NFILM and the GNG. And I agree that this film looks like a trainwreck, but if that were a disqualifying factor, we wouldn't have The Room (film). Rockphed (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, looking at that link again, it's a personal review site, with little notability; an alternative might be this Spanish language movie review site, CaspaSinestra.com. In any event, for better or worse, people have watched it, and seen fit to review it. It's passably "notable", if forgettably terrible. --Leflyman^Talk 01:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cinema-crazed takes submitted reviews from non-professional critics, and it's unclear what the standards for journalism is at ScreenPicks.com. Neither sources seems particularly reliable/notable. With the absence of reviews from reliable sources, fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: To be fair, the Cinema Crazed article was written by Felix Vasquez Jr., who is an established critic. Additionally, I think you might be mistaken about the website taking "submitted reviews from non-professional critics"; Vasquez allows people and filmmakers to submit films for review on his website, but I haven't seen anything which suggests that any old schmoe can submit a review to the website and have it posted there. –Matthew - (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as it does have some significant reliable coverage such as Cinema Crazed and non-English sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanx Commonwealth planets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another list of fictional planets sourced only to 3 non-indep sources. ミラ P 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be pure fancruft, inappropriate for the enyclopedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- extreme fancruft, belongs on a Wikia rather than here. Poorly sourced as well. Reyk _YO! 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary plot details with no out of universe encyclopedic context. TTN (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2019 (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. Since this is a list of lists, the relevant consideration is not whether the monsters are notable or the frequent subject of lists, but whether the lists themselves are. The consensus below is that this is not the case. Alternatively, this could be a disambiguation page, but at this time only two such lists remain. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters[edit]

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

Same reason as several of the associated lists have been AFD' and deleted there: A list of each monster from each guidebook of the game is not very useful.. Blatant violation of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 01:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which other lists are you referring to? - Bilby (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: See these ones for starters. ミラ P 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Two of those were deleted, the other two are under discussion. It helps to either have an explantion as to why something is nominated, or a link to the nominations you say justify the the AFD. - Bilby (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest this could be used to start a "List of D&D Rulebooks" as that's how its almost setup, but then I see we have List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks which meets that need. --Masem (t) 03:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems clear that every list on this page will be deleted for non-notability, or at least everything besides one, so there is no real reason to keep this one around._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Insofar as any D&D monsters might be notable (which is still in doubt) and the monsters of D&D are notable as a group (I have seen 1 source that seems to support it), I think this list is the perfect place to list any D&D monsters that survive the purge. This is the only source I have seen that seems to support the notability of monsters in D&D as a group:

Wienecke-Janz, Detlef, ed. (2002). Lexikon der Zauberwelten – Gandalf & Co. Wissen Media Verlag. p. 12. ISBN 3-577-13505-0.

I hope somebody else can pull up another source. Rockphed (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crufty trivial factoids. Rockphed, your source is appreciated--but that such a source would help the notability of a list like this is questionable. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um, guys. This is silly. Are there great sources? Only a few. And they are hard to find because there are tons of RSes that list monsters like this. Tons. And tons. [16], [17], [18], [19] are just the first few that show up if you search for 'dungeons and dragons monsters'. As far as books, [20] is amazing, but would not be counted as independent due to the publisher. But if you were to read it you'd see it's a great treatment. Oh well, let's go on to books that would count for purposes of Wikipedia rules. [21] in an encyclopedia by an academic which lists monsters from all sources including those from D&D. [22] is a list of monsters for D&D published by a different publisher. There are dozens like that. Books like [23] cover the broad topic of the conceptual origins of role-playing games including monsters. There are lots of academic sources that do the same thing. [24] covers a similar topic from a CRPG viewpoint. These books are fairly well cited (~50 cites) by the journals and conferences considered by Google scholar. This would perhaps be a better article than a list. But there are enough sources to make it a featured list. @BOZ:, perhaps making it a featured list could go somewhere on your (remarkable) todo list? Hobit (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, thanks for your note, but this doesn't do anything for me. That those book searches that include the term "monsters" deliver solid hits is to be expected: monsters are part of the game. It's like adding "200" to a Monopoly search. What they establish, as far as I'm concerned, is that the game is notable, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. (The Peterson book looks quite interesting.) And the problem with these lists (which we find all over Wikipedia, of course, in all kinds of topics) is that they are so completely undue: excessive, overly detailed, in-universe, full of OR and plot summary, poorly verified or not at all--crufty, in a word. (I'm speaking in general, not just about this list of lists.) I looked at List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) (I see all of them are up for deletion?) and that's not even the worst one--but that's not encyclopedic content. And the lists of terrifying monsters #1-10 on those popular websites, yeah--they will never make me believe that lists of monsters (like lists of characters) and lists of lists of monsters are acceptable encyclopedic content. Thanks, and sorry, Drmies (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for looking. You do realize that the first book is solely on monsters, yes? I'd bet that well less than 10% of our list articles have sources that include things like "list of X" articles. Sorry that doesn't win you over, but I'd say this very clearly greatly exceeds WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow Hobit, thank you for finding those! I will have to find a way to use them, but it feels like the battle to keep even the 1st edition AD&D monster list is just about lost at this point. :( The winds have changed over the last decade or so since I made these lists, and people really, really want them gone now. BOZ (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. And I'd argue they are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna agree with you there for what it's worth. Will need to find a way to start over on an unfortunately much more limited basis; I have some ideas already, although it may be a little while before I can put any of that into play. BOZ (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a disambiguation page of four pages, most of which seem to be guaranteed to be deleted, it will soon be functionally useless. On the topic itself, list upon list of monsters are game guide material. TTN (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have just closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters as redirect to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons, as consensus for deletion for was very thin, and at least some of the content and sources in the nominated article could be used to develop the explanation of the role of monsters in the game. I would suggest that merging this article into the same target would therefore be an equally appropriate outcome. bd2412 T 02:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN. As of now, this is merely a list of links to other deleted or soon-to-be-deleted other lists, and then some brief, completely unsourced information on the books. As such, there really is nothing worth keeping or merging anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless list of other useless, deleted or soon-to-be-deleted lists. Not a very active user (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the D&D monster list articles are a useful resource for the RPG gaming community. Much of this information has been long out of print and is otherwise unavailable to a large percentage of players. 12.106.168.131 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then recreate it in the D&D Wiki (if it isn't already there?) WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE expressly prohibits articles that are solely a game resource and guide, without encyclopedic content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal discussion after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silent commerce[edit]

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

dictionary article. Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 07:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly expandable into a detailed article. Significant discussion in Mobile and Wireless Systems Beyond 3G: Managing New Business Opportunities and The Ultimate CRM Handbook. Yet another WP:BEFORE failure. SpinningSpark 13:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might make for a useful article in the future, but as of right now, it's not even a stub. Make that a Strong delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2019 (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. Has enough coverage of herself personally to indicate notability. RL0919 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Rockefeller[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Users who have removed notability concerns in the past have since been banned. Hypererleas (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while if you leverage inherited wealth to do notable things you can become notable, Ms Rockefeller has not yet done so so is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she is notable enough. There is plenty of press on her, quite a bit that isn't trivial. Each of her ventures may not be notable enough but together they certainly help her pass GNG. Plenty of good sources too. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - despite the obvious paid editing - because the sources are significant enough. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered in major news media as a fashion designer and equestrian rider, even though we understand being an heiress of the Rockefellers is where it all begins. That alone wouldn't cut it, especially without sigcov, but the coverage seems to be about the additional reasons. StonyBrook (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite Rockefeller dynasty members are notable enough, but we will need to clean up the messy PR look of the article and make it more neutral. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 17:02, 6 October 2019 (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. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nette Framework[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced only by its own website & github repository. No evidence that it's notable. It's G4 eligible, but this version has survived several years already. AFD is in deference to its age. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article from SitePoint gives it significant coverage from a non-primary source.^[1] It also shows that according to a 2015 survey, it was the third most popular product of its type. I found a few other articles dealing with Nette^[2]^[3] and it even gets mentioned in scientific papers.^[4] There's also paid courses available for developers who want to use Nette.^[5] I'm gonna say that it's quite notable and the act that only primary sources are used in the article is an oversight on the part of the editor who wrote it and doesn't reflect on the actual notability of the product. PraiseVivec talk) 13:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ren, Taylor (22 June 2015). "Nette Framework: First Impressions". SitePoint. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
^ Otemuyiwa, Prosper (19 September 2017). "Building an app with Nette and adding authentication". Auth0. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
^ Brejla, Ondrej (9 May 2013). "Nette Framework with Latte Templates (and one more thing)". blogs.oracle.com. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
^ Vokorokos, Liberios; Uchnar, Matus; Chovancova, Eva (June 2018). "DataGrid Module for Nette Framework". 2018 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Intelligent Engineering Systems (INES). doi:10.1109/INES.2018.8523852. Retrieved 20 September 2019.
^ "Developing Web applications in Nette Framework II". Retrieved 20 September 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see PraiseVivec's great find but right now, this article has nothing worth keeping. It needs a full rewriting, so WP:TNT. No prejudice against userifying it. flowing dreams (talk page) 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the sources and rationale cited above, and I don't see the point of deleting and recreating -- it's only got a couple of sentences in the lede, and the entire rest of the article is a list of components/versioning history. It is unfortunate that half of the refs are to new version releases, but I don't see how that justifies WP:TNT when the bad sections can just be removed to leave a serviceable stub. { $\mathbb {JPG}$ } 21:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you have replace everything: the bad sections, the lede, and the sources. Plus, contributors who contributed the bad contents get credit for the article. I wouldn't have minded if this credit was not in the form of copyright-related obligations. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:46, 9 October 2019 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UFuture Investment Group[edit]

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

Not notable - 1000 employees is certainly not "one of the largest business groups in Ukraine". Wikisaurus (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new References and Further reading sections. I plan further improvements to this article in the next few days. Daask (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that Cwmhiraeth deleted most of the page contents, in my opinion rather carelessly. The pre-deletion WP:PUFF-piece version is here. Daask (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me to be a sufficiently notable business, as indicated by the further reading section. The article was created by an apparent CoI user who refuses to respond to a question about paid editing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty notable, judging by the "Further Reading" section. Hei314 (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources only provide passing mentions. Luke^Talk 03:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of sources there only mention UFuture, like "55. Vasily Khmelnistky, businessman, founder of UFuture Investment Group and K. Fund" or "But he also organizes the annual Kyiv International Economic Forum, and owns Sikorsky International Airport in Kyiv (formerly Zhuliany), the Ocean Plaza mall, and investment group UFuture." Some like this even do not mention it. The only source that considers it in any depth is this, but it is a news about establishment, it alone does not gives WP:ORG. Wikisaurus (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable to me. It seems to also be a permastub. Could possibly merge it with something? Doug Mehus (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having actually looked at the references in the "Further Reading" section and after searching myself, I am unable to locate a single reference that comes even close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability. Topic utterly fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No further discussion after two relists and the first AFD closed as Keep, so a soft delete seems inappropriate. RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Novoselova[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article’s first deletion nomination was clearly poorly done, yet the notability issue still stands (take all the ridiculous puff and promotion out and you will see it). Meanwhile, the fallacious belief that the defunct, obsolete New York Magazine model directory doesn’t. None of these citations do. The Fashion Spot forums?! Unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her work is featured in the book The Magic of Fashion: Ritual, Commodity, Glamour by Brian Moeran, Routledge, 2016 (see here on google books); Harper's Bazaar Fabulous at Every Age: Your Quick & Easy Guide to Fashion By Nandini D'Souza, Jenny Barnett, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2009 (see here in Google Books). Not sure if this lends any notability beyond what's in the article.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given comment here I can't find my way to close as soft delete, but a nomination only is not a consensus to delete. Relisting in hopes that broader involvement might more firmly establish consensus (or no consensus).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2019 (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. RL0919 (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Dizon[edit]

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

There are some concerns as to whether the subject meets WP:NPOLITICIAN and we believe that AFD is the best forum for coming to a consensus. I am pinging @Emperork, Piotrus, and Narutolovehinata5: as the other participants in the DYK nomination (Alvin Dizon) that spawned this question. I am neutral. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Councilmember of Cebu City, Philippines. --Enos733 (talk) 04:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOL, except for very large cities, city council members generally aren't inherently notable under the guideline and instead need to meet WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but leaning towards delete - I did a search for sources and could only really find one article specifically about him, which is this newspaper column. Apart from that, the only other news sources that mention him focus more on the proposed ordinance instead of Dizon himself. Otherwise, the only results I could find are false positives for other people with the same name. The only reason this is a comment instead of a delete !vote is because I was thinking that the column article might count as significant coverage, but I'm not sure if it's enough to establish notability. (Disclosure: I was the one who proposed that the article be put up for AFD at the DYK discussion). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is mostly in passing and/or limited to local news outlets, primarily Cebu Daily News. There is the mentioned article on The Philippine Star but I don't think it is sufficient, and it suffers from being a blatant endorsement ("Vote wisely in 2019!"). In the end, this entire article is likely a prop piece for the ongoing election campaign :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the Philippine election for 2019 has already finished (it was back in May) so there is no "ongoing" election campaign and the next election won't be until 2022. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, thank you for opening this up for discussion. Mr. Dizon was recently elected in May 2019 elections for his third non-consecutive term. His most notable ordinance which applies to Cebu City, was the anti-discrimination measure he authored, the first anti-discrimination local law in the Philippines, which currently doesn't have a counterpart national law. The creation of the ordinance was also recognized by the US Embassy when then Amb. Golberg attended an Pride month event in 2015. I also have a clarification with what constitutes "main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians and if Cebu City is among them. — <b>Emperork</b> (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The Globalization and World Cities Research Network, which lists only one other city in the Philippines, lists Cebu as "Sufficiency" so there's a chance it probably should be a little fine. ミラ P 01:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In our past discussions on the notability crtiteria for city councillors, we've actually deprecated the "sufficiency" class of cities as not enough — a city has to be in the letter graded classes of global cities to hand its city councillors "inherent" notability. So I can evaluate this solely on whether the sources are enough to establish him as being significantly more notable than the norm for city councillors — but the sources here are a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, which means they're not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that for any councilmember WP:GNG applies and the sourcing should be more than "they exist," just like for most other local elected officials. I do recognize that for certain cities, whether they stem from the ranking of cities by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network or other sources, a councilmember may be "inherently more notable" than the usual councilmember. In this case, I do not see how the subject passes WP:GNG based on the existing sources. --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. He's one of seven council members of a city of a bit under 1,000,000 people; his district covers 47 barangays, about half of the areas of that city. Under our "precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas" but Cebu City is not that "famous" - it's the fifth largest city in the Philippines, and has some tourist destinations (e.g. Carbon Market), but it's not the travel draw of say, Manila, the rice terraces, or the beaches. It's on my bucket list, but I understand most people have never heard of the place. If sources could be discovered that attest to his activism as a minority party member, I'd go with a keep. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete council member articles should stand on their sourcing, not on claims of how notable the city is, and the sourcing here is not suffcient to justify an article on a politcian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2019 (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. Sentiment in the discussion after the second relist clearly turned to Keep, and was supported with specific reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Tillman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Time for another AfD on this one, now that the topic isn't so beset with SPAs. A lot of this is irrelevant filler material (one of her customers being Katherine Hepburn's father is up there), and once stripped of this we learn she was born, she worked, she got old, she was the world's oldest person for 5 days, she died, and one professor once talked about her in one lecture that was peripherally related to her. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, all the relevant information can be at the list of American supercentenarians; wouldn't be opppsed to a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m gonna have to disagree. While a lot of these headlines are about her being the oldest person in the world for a while (at some point it’s gotta be somebody), reliable sources e.g. NYT validate facts about her from childhood all the way throughout her life. That can’t be denied. She also holds the world record according to Guinness for being the oldest person for the shortest amount of time. A record’s a record. And the coverage spanned across 10 years. Trillfendi (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And all of that is utterly mundane, routine minutiae. Growing up, going to church for a long time and operating a business are not in any way remarkable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s not about we like; there are thousands of uninteresting people on this website. She could’ve been famous for making macaroni and cheese as far as I’m concerned. The notability policy says verifiable evidence is required and that the coverage is sustained. The previous AfD of this showed several examples of articles on her from the 2000s, and they weren’t blurbs. Trillfendi (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reasons given in the first AFD (which I just read for the first time). She had non-trivial coverage over a sustained period of time, and therefore satisfies the criteria at WP:GNG. I see nothing new being offered by the nominator from the last AFD nomination, and it's likely this AFD will come to the same conclusion it did last time.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Non-trivial? She lived and died, that's all the sources say. Living and dying are not notable just for having an unusual length of time in between events, and the AfD 4 years ago was so infested with SPAs that any conclusions from it are meaningless; longevity articles have had a huge problem with fanboys canvassing off-wiki, which clearly happened in that case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you have accurately summarized the content of the article, conveniently leaving out her achievement of being the oldest person alive on the planet earth, if only for four days. Such records are of interest to humanity, which is why the news covers them, and why such coverage meets the criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG. As stated in the last AFD, the media coverage is substantial enough in this case to support keeping this article. I suggest you come to terms with wikipedia's policies as they are and stop trying to fight windmills.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage. You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means. No, a bunch of canvassed fanboys shrieking ITSNOTABLE!!!! doesn't make it so. Breathing for a long time is not notable, as has been established at many recent AfDs (many are listed here), I think I might just actually know what I'm talking about. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's absolutely nothing in this article that cannot be handled in the lists of longest living people. There's no policy-based reason that this subject needs a stand-alone article. Please review WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is tending towards No Consensus, but I'd like to relist it for one more week. There was a lot of participation in the first AfD, surely there are more than four people who have an opinion on this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The extent of her notability is that she was the oldest person whose birth certificate had been examined for 4 days. Except for an article on her 4 years before she died, that is the extent of the sourcing of this article. That sounds like WP:BLP1E, even though she is dead and thus BLP no longer applies. The article 4 years early is WP:MILL. Rockphed (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While one of the two keep !voters has been given that it meets GNG not just being verifiable there is consensus among the three !voters that it does not. Attempting one final relist to see if a firmer consensus about this either way may be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has an obituary in the New York Times and that's clear evidence of notability. The nomination is a plain violation of WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are certainly aware that this topic in 2015 was flooded with SPAs. Now that it isn't, a renomination 4 years later is hardly disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources, so there is now significant coverage from 1990, 1993, 1997, 2006 and 2007. Much of it is in her local paper, the Hartford Courant, with an article in another Connecticut paper, the Journal Inquirer. However, in 2006 there is also a long article in the Salvation Army journal Priority!, and there are long obituaries in the New York Times (republished internationally) and Boston Globe, with shorter ones in other media. That is certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. While the nominator may think that "Breathing for a long time is not notable", clearly newspapers like the New York Times and Boston Globe think that it is notable enough for them to give it significant coverage, and that is what WP:GNG is based on, not how long a subject breathes for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-covered and meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's death received significant coverage in The New York Times (link), Los Angeles Times (link), the New York Daily News (link) the BBC (link), and the The Sydney Morning Herald (link). Prior to her death, she received sustained significant coverage in the Hartford Courant (1990 article, 1993 article 1997 article, 1998 article, 2000 article, 2002 article, and 2007 article). There are even more sources as posted here by Fiskje88 (talk · contribs) such as a 2002 article in the The Bulletin and a 2005 article in the Journal Inquirer.
The sustained significant coverage about Emma Tillman means that she clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important question. What is a SPA? Hard to understand the arguments for/against if you don’t understand the lingo.

Single Purpose Account. Often a mark of an editor who has a particular POV (point of view) and/or one who is not really here to build an encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2019 (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.