Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 13 December	15 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy D. Williams

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

Poorly sourced WP:AUTOBIO (creator = "Jeremy D Williams") of a person notable only as the former mayor of a town that is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors. A smalltown mayor can sometimes still clear the bar if he can be reliably sourced well enough to deem him a special notability case over and above most other smalltown mayors, but is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- but the sourcing here just comprises a mix of primary sources and local reporting in the local community pennysaver, and even most of the latter just quotes him giving soundbite in articles that aren't about him. This is not the type or depth of coverage it takes to make a smalltown mayor more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and per my failure to locate additional sources of notability or SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nerio

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

Think this could be better merged into another article. Not sure which though. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least until you can suggest a merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, well you can use AFD for megers too --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - we aren't designed to be used as a 1st tier merger, though AfD can decide to use it in place of a delete - in effect, it shouldn't be AfD unless the primary thought is delete/redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - not a valid rationale for deletion. Seems notable and possible to expand per sources - [1], [2], [3], [4] etc. It may be possible to think of a merge to Minerva/Athena - this being a deity imported via the Sabines (based on their name for Athena) - however it seems she took a life of her own in the Roman pantheon and co-existed to an extent with Minerva - so I'm not sure I would go there. While not a major diety, being the consort of Mars (mythology) probably passes WP:NDEITY (someone should write this up - we've got NPOL and NACTOR - so...). Icewhiz (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing; [5] gives several alternate spellings and I'm not sure which is most common, but Nerine and Neriene are both articles on species so I see no reason to rename. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's not nice to delete a Roman war goddess.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't heard of this goddess, but the arguments are persuasive that she's distinguishable from other deities and supported by reliable sources. Also, have to agree with E.M. Gregory in particular! P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Brown (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, in a town not large enough to confer automatic notability on its mayors. A smalltown mayor can sometimes still clear the bar if he can be reliably sourced well enough to deem him a special notability case over and above most other smalltown mayors, but is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- but the only references here are to the city's own primary source website about itself, not to media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orangeville, Ontario - nom is correct that ___location isn't large enough to provide mayoral notability under WP:NPOL and while there is some entertaining coverage about the nicking of his chain, he himself doesn't look politically special. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mayors of places this size are not default notable and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems almost like it is written as campaign literature. Bkissin (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Connor (Ohio politician)

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

So, he lost two U.S. House races in 2018. The last AFD, before the second election, was closed as no consensus. Being county recorder is not enough to meet WP:NPOL. Every reference used in this article is in relation to his U.S. House candidacy. We don't typically keep articles on U.S. House candidates who lose elections, and material from this page can easily be integrated into 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio. Marquardtika (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and incorporate pertinent information into 2018 U.S. House elections page as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a two-time failing candidate in one year is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and incorporate pertinent information into 2018 U.S. House elections. I see not SIGCOV and no claim to notability aside form the primary and general campaigns in 2018, and coverage of that is ROUTINE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election) - as per the above arguments re NPOL. There seems no reason for a delete. The election seems a far more logical target than where he was county recorder which doesn't cover him. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect if desired. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — and the fact that some local campaign coverage happens to exist is not an instant WP:GNG pass that exempts them from having to pass WP:NPOL, because every candidate in every election can always show some local campaign coverage. But county recorder is not a level of political office that guarantees a Wikipedia article either, so he can't claim preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Ohio's 12th congressional district special election. Merge bio and campaign info into the election article. Candidate does not pass WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to the election article if desired, though the fact it's disambiguated may prove a bit pointless. Fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and a good example that we shouldn't rush to keep BLP articles just because there's an ongoing election. SportingFlyer talk 18:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historians Against the War

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

No external references, just their own publications. Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Current article is a mess - and sourcing does not meet anything close to required for WP:NORG. In my BEFORE I was able to find some coverage of a motion they attempted to pass at AHA - which mainly discusses the motion. I was also able to find some coverage in - The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, David Horowitz - however that's mostly on the people involved in the organization and not on the organization itself. In short - sourcing meeting WP:ORGCRIT does not seem to be available. Icewhiz (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete noting that page is so disheveled that it is not clear which war this organization opposed. Page has been tagged for improved on multiple counts since 2012. All sources on page are primary, and very few hits turned up in searches I ran, certainly not enough to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ephemeral academic political work that pretty much fizzled out after the group's political goals were achieved in late 2008. The wars they argued against lived on, but by then it made no political sense for the academics to carry on; the website remained, but as a dying group, not much happened afterwards, with the rump organization itself calling the period "mostly passive". A couple of meetings took place in the years afterwards, with the organizers calling them "feel good" but "hardly anyone did" join anymore. Whatever remains has even changed its name now. Most refs on the article are to the organization's own website. Does not meet WP:GNG. Time to consign to the dustbin of history. XavierItzm (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial and no evidence of lasting notability shown. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Katz

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

I came across this while RC patrolling. The article lacks any claim of notability either the recent revisions or farther back in history. As is so often the case, there are good references for a number of assertions that do not establish notability. The ongoing content dispute seems to center on concerns of self-promotion. Beyond listing the article here, I'm not going to intervene in that.

There is also a lengthy discussion of sourcing problems on the talk page, and in the comments in the history. Uninvited Company 19:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info

The only possible valid information on the page is the Frostburg University info. Though he was the person to supply it. The citation for it is hosted on Maryland Shared Open Access Repository Home and not the schools official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadIdeaToLie (talk • contribs) 20:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC) I have already contacted the writer of the Forbes article to see what information he can provide about Robert and what if any checking he did of his credentials he did. I have links to disprove claims made about his past as well as his credentials that he claims to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadIdeaToLie (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BadIdeaToLie, please note (although you may already know this) that the article was written by a Forbes Contributor, which is not a Forbes staff member, and may have no journalistic training. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick Yeah the writer is actually the CEO of a company that host a conference that he was supposed to speak at in 2016. ^[1] Yet the website for that conference is still up ^[2] and his name is not referenced anywhere.

References

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article that is even vaguely like a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. Seems like a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Citrivescence (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cundy

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

Not enough sources, questionable notability Vmavanti (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. The only possible criterion would be #6 "....is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", but this article itself states that he has "collaborated with" a number of notable bands, and "most notably as an additional saxophonist", so he clearly has not been an actual member, let alone reasonably prominent. The few reviews I can find which name him do just that - name him as one of the members of the band/ensemble. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search resulted in no relevant links to support notability. There are several subjects by this name. The ones that appear to be for the subject do not supply significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Heroes of Africa

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

This article tells us virtually nothing about the stamps, other than their basics. I can't find any reliable sources to support notability to justify a stand-alone article. The first 3 citations are from the same commercial stamp selling sites, so fail WP:RS and merely confirm the stamps were issues with some minor details. The last citation provides some background but there is nothing unusual about these stamps, no errors, no controversy, nothing more than their joint issuance by 3 countries. That is also not usual and the basics could easily be added to the joint issue stamps article where there are many other stamps that have not articles. Considering there are about 10,000 stamps issued worldwide each year, there does not appear to anything special about these relative to any other set of modern stamps. If this sort of non-notable stamp article is retained then, virtually every other stamp issued could be justified. ww2censor (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This collection of stamps is noteworthy culturally and politically as explicitly crediting the South African Jewish minority as such for its extraordinary contribution to ending apartheid. These Jewish activists had roots in Lithuania, as noted in the Vilnews article. Given the widespread anti-semitism around the world, it is especially significant that these stamps by Gambia, Liberia and Sierra Leone make a political point of appreciating decades of Jewish activism. Very few postage stamps have such global cultural and political significance, linking these three countries with South Africa, Israel and Lithuania. Deletion of this article might offend readers in all countries whose culture is underrepresented at Wikipedia. --AndriusKulikauskas (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 4 references. This issue of stamps was reported around the world, in the UK, the US, Jerusalem, South Africa, and Lithuania. That clearly meets WP:GNG. Certainly, if other stamp issues are reported as widely, then they would also merit a Wikipedia article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the great references unearthed by RebeccaGreen. Kudos, Rebecca! Ifnord (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jadon Sand

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role that is borderline significant at best is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR FWIW. Rzvas (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Lourdes 15:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Times

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

No claim of notability, thereby failing WP:NCORP. There is also the issue that sources appear to be passing mentions (thereby also failing WP:GNG). WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE search only brought up small mentions. Could not find anything that would meet WP:NCORP. If someone can read Russian they might be able to find a better source. DeniedClub ^{❯❯❯ talk?} 02:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 15:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musk electric jet

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

Article is about a vague concept that Musk has discussed nothing more, there is nothing significant distinguishing this from any other hypothetical electric jet concept other than "Elon Musk is involved". Consider recreating such an article when one of Musk's companies has actually produced at least a prototype of such a jet. Concepts like this are barely (if even) notable. Sarr Cat 14:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into electric aircraft per WP:PRESERVE. It would be sensible to collate all the various ideas and proposals there so that readers can compare and contrast them. Andrew D. (talk)

Even so, there is no concrete information about the proposal in the article. There is also the issue that it isn't notable as it's only claim of notability is relation to a famous person (in this case, Elon Musk). Kirbanzo (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elon Musk. He's the reason why this is worth talking about anyway, so let's merge it there - a couple of sentences saying this is something he's talked about should suffice. FOARP (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – The best hint we have is Musk saying "I’m quite tempted to do something about it." Not every WP:FART is notable. No factual contents to preserve in a merge. Salt title to prevent fans from re-creating a stub based on speculation du jour. — JFG ^talk 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt if this doesn’t go away. It’s vaporware, an extraordinary claim, and when your best sources have words like “NO PLANS FOR...” and “CRAZY IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE” in the headlines, that’s a giant blinking neon red flag saying no. Just no. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 22:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 14:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Diocese of the East

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

I can find no sources that mention this organisation it fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing the reliable source coverage for it to meet WP:GNG or WP:BRANCH (as a sub-organization of the Episcopal church). PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PohranicniStraze - fails WP:NORG. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; closing in favour of the nominator's proposal given the !voters pointing to lack of sources, and taking into consideration the additional comment by David. Lourdes 14:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Anglican Church of America

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

fails WP:GNG I can't find any sources for this organisation Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that this article had been in AfD in 2016. See history there. Still (!) no citations. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find sources either, under this name or their previous one. It's possible that there may be pre-internet sources available, but unless those turn up, the subject fails WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gram Panchayat Building, Sattari

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

Fails WP:GNG; it's just a municipal office building, and from what I can tell, it's of no architectural note. Possibly a creative revival of Binodpur Gram Panchayat (Office), which was speedied a week ago. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Binodpur Gram Panchayat, the municipality article for this building. The building does not appear to be independently notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Merging and creating redirects from Panchayet Building seems a tad too ridiculous to me.∯WBG^converse 19:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that a merge and redirect is unnecessary; it should just go Spiderone 10:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No merge and redirect needed. Non-notable brick and mortar structure which serves as the administrative headquarters of a district. — $f r +$ 08:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an ordinary building with no special claim to notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Tiwari

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

The article is largely promotional. It was PRODed and deleted (possibly twice: see Tiwaribharat, Aarushi2003) in 2012. The photograph in the article's infobox was uploaded in 2012 by Tiwaribharat. The current article was first created by Aaru2003 and declined then resubmitted by PhotoIndia. Since then it has been edited and promoted by anonymous editors.

The sources cited in the article don't particularly establish notability. A Financial Express article in the external links section does dedicate a couple of inches to him. But IMO, this is insufficient. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not have significant coverage as per the criteria WP:SIGCOV or WP:NARTIST. Teh Asian Age article and the Financial express article above mention him in passing and attribute his comment about the topic of the article. We require an article in reliable media talking about the subject in great detail. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I thought this was borderline, but after deleting many of the shady sources (a contact page, a book for sale page, a photos for sale page) used as sources, it's clear that the brief mentions in the sourcing that is left, and the promotional and exaggerated nature of the page adds up to a GNG fail. Salt may be required given past deletions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't particularly establish notability. SalmanZ (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person is not notable. Azkord (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also per WP:G7. Sandstein 12:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage of firearms

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

Whilst it may be sourced this looks like editorializing. As well as a veiled attack page on WikiProject Firearms. Blatant soapboxing Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One in the eye for the US gun lobby and our clearly NRA influenced arms in Merkia coverage. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:GNG with several independent articles in various newspapers. There are additional sources that I did not use, such as a report by the Action on Armed Violence discussing the "criminal use" section of WP:Firearms. The AOAV does research into gun violence and civilians; its reports have been used by independent media, such as Vice News. The organization has collaborated with the Harvard Law School, therefore it can probably be considered an RS. It's true that the reporting on this has been critical, but I dispute the idea that this is an attack page. Catrìona (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete after reconsideration of the sources. Although sufficient in-depth coverage does exist to write a non-stub article, the coverage focuses narrowly on a particular controversy such that it is not possible to write a NPOV article with the existing sources. I categorically reject the allegations that this was an attack article. It was a good-faith effort to cover a controversy that excited significant media attention, rather than defame any particular editors or groups of editors. In fact, I have never been involved in firearms editing before and have never interacted with most of the editors who were quoted in news reports. I blanked the page so it will be speedily deleted soon. Catrìona (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is entirely circular and will just be a running commentary. Wikipedia mirroring itself via filtration through a select few press organizations. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on itself; see Category:Wikipedia. The question is does the article follow Wikipedia notability and content policies? Your !vote doesn't address that. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is more than sufficient and within the scope of the AfD process. The pages within the category you supplied, bear limited resemblance to the article in question. Even if they did, it wouldn't void my reasoning. The circular nature of the sources and writing (WP, RS, WP) means that there would be strong inherent bias, easily inserted from the Wikipedia end and more than enough to question the validity of such an article. Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Additionally, the discussion doesn't meet WP:GNG. The articles aren't independent. Three of the sources just refer back to the original Verge article as their only source. Any editor willing to do the leg work will see that article is full of factual errors because the author didn't bother to follow the related talk page discussions. But I think the concerns regarding soapbox and editorializing (as well as attacking active editors) are all legitimate. Springee (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Springee Some of the articles refer to each other, but that doesn't mean that they aren't contributing original reporting. For example, the Haaretz article refers to the Verge article but the writer also did his own investigation: "The follow-up on the work conducted by The Verge revealed that these editors were not focused solely on the articles about the AR-15, but also worked across a web of entries pertaining to guns and rifles in general, and even cultural staples of the gung-ho gun culture." Detailed, in-depth coverage from multiple sources satisfies WP:GNG. In addition, the report mentioned above makes no mention of the Verge article or any other media coverage. As stated on the talk page of the article, I think it would be difficult to incorporate information from talk pages without violating WP:NOR. Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt What sort of fresh recursive nonsense is this? Seems more like somebody's attempt at an essay than an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223: I've already fixed a number of issues raised by another user. Perhaps you'd like to give specific feedback so that the article could be improved? Catrìona (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By being deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article about wikipedia in the news seems like recursive WP:NOTNEWS to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - A blatant WP:NPOV violation, in addition to problems raised by other editors in this discussion. Kirbanzo (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this article violates NPOV. It's all very well quoting policy, but you need to explain how this violates that policy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ideological bias on Wikipedia. The issue of technical emphasis versus environmental consequences is much larger than firearms and may be inappropriately dispersed and duplicated if we have separate articles on each aspect. The existing text is narrowly focused on individual firearms ownership while ignoring the consequences of firearms use by military, police, and corporate security personnel. Similar analogies apply for use of motor vehicles including aircraft, for pest control and pharmaceutical chemicals, and potentially for monetary practices and resource ownership, extraction, and use. Thewellman (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response ought to be based on Wiki Policy. Your obfuscation above is meaningless. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea, the sources may be useful for something in the "Claims of bias" section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly self-referential article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per above comments.--RAF910 (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for my reasons states at the talk page....oh wait, the talk page was deleted.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly speedy-delete WP:G10 as an attack page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admin question: Since the author has voted to delete, isn't this essentially a G7? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's worth noting that the likelihood of RAF910 and I ever agreeing about anything is so minute that when we do it should give cause for pause. In this case, even though we were on opposite sides of the conflict referenced in this article I think we can agree in the strongest terms that it's not a matter of encyclopedic record. And I'd also concur with Niteshift36 that this looks like a G7 at this point. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or "delet this", if this involves deletion and guns on the Internet): Content would be good as part of a larger thing on systematic biases on Wikipedia, but on its own feels too forgettable in the long term. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed and Withdrawn New information come to light and the nominator ahas withdrawn this. Additionally with the page move its a strong keep.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade incident

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

WP:NOTTEMPORARY (third aragraph} "cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." As of now it is 1 event and per NOTNEWS. Lihaas (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: title of AfD changed because article title was changed.

~~Move~~ to Devyani Khobragade visa incident or some other title. While Khobragade may not yet meet WP:DIPLOMAT, the incident and its fallout are notable. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A much briefer subsection of indua-US relation perhaps? (i posed this on that talk page)Lihaas (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This incident might be worth mentioning on India–United States relations, depending on its long-term significance, but I don't think the article should be merged there. The intensity of the reaction in the Indian media and the retaliatory measures taken by the Indian government suggest that this incident meets WP:EVENT. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 17:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that this article is located at Devyani Khobragade incident. This incident is widely covered in diverse, international sources and has already had a tangible impact on India–US relations. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~Keep as per User:Jinkinson..clearly a notable event...but probably not a notable person ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move But a better title other than Devyani Khobragade visa incident is needed. Now that it is moved to a better title, we can keep it. The event is notable not because of the incident itself. But because of how it is handled by both nations. I personally think this event meets Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. It requires context to understand and it cannot be provided in India–United States relations article (as suggested above by Lihaas) without giving undue weight to this incident. --Jayarathina (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Violates both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTTEMPORARY Veryhuman (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved page to Devyani Khobragade incident as recommended by majority. This incident has swollen up and is impacting India-US relations and will be referred to for long time to come hence cannot be treated as "one of" cases. Cheers AKS 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been moved. The incident is becoming quite big. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it's been moved. Agreed, this incident seems significant not just in terms of India-US relations (that will probably pass) but in the changing jurisprudence of diplomatic rights and immunities. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(as moved) major diplomatic incident. The woman may not be notable, but the incident is notable because of who she is. See Raymond Allen Davis incident a US diplomat who was arrested in Pakistan for killing two people, and the US demanded his release under the Vienna Convention.Martin451 21:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the current title, Devyani Khobragade incident. This is plainly a notable event given the significant consequences it's had in India, with reactions from senior Indian politicians. The person may or may not be notable but the incident and surrounding controversy is. Robofish (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep under current title incident meets WP:EVENT criteria, as event caused a major change in India government's stand in US related policy. Jethwarp (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the new title "Devyani Khobragade incident". It has already become a quite notable event. Salih (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It is a big event with wide coverage. --Pmsyyz (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (after page move) Notable incident. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 09:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Criticized? Mate we even got articles about Osama, and if we fall into criticism trap then we will have to delete the george bush or obama's article too, but no, this figure is heavily popular right now, and possibly going to play some role in future. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Its a major issue now. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 10:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should not be deleted. --_SMS^{^{Let's talk}} 10:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event has developed into a major diplomatic spat. -Sahir 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Article is notable per coverage. Happydit (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: People are calling it a anti-dalit mentality. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I've thought about this a while and have come to the conclusion that this article is a POV nightmare. Nearly all the sources are editorials aiming to whitewash incontrovertible evidence of fraud, human-trafficking, abuse, and slave labor. 143.215.120.5 (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Number two story on Google News today and it is also making headlines (TV) in non-English news, so it certainly is relevant. In addition, the incident is not over as there are further developments (e.g., Indian removing the barricades from US embassy in Delhi).S-1-5-7 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has many dimensions and is a significant incident to warrant an article here. --Bhadani (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident. Encyclopedic information available. Needs further development in the area of her offence/background. -Rayabhari (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: A very important discussion among two large democracies of the world about diplomatic immunity vs. local laws. It is very well documented and scholarly written referenced article and provides an important chronological imformation for readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.117.16 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:GNG. It chronicles a worldwide incident with many external sources. At hindustantimes.com the incident sits as 4 of the top 6 stories today. Subject is less than one week old, lack of notoriety cannot possibly be assessed per [[6]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.64.1 (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident (NOTTEMPORARY) affecting foreign relations between major countries and interpretation of diplomatic immunity. Already widely publicised and controversial incident. WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT
COMMENT OK I'm not sure what to do here. Another editor has now created a separate article for the woman herself, and that means that this AfD's title is inaccurate. I'm changing the title, to match the article that the AfD notice is on, because I think it's likely that if the new article survives someone will AfD that too and it will need a separate section. Please let me know if there's another way to solve the problem —Soap— 16:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into India–United States relations. Much of the flap is just Indian politicians posturing to get people behind them with elections looming. The story is possibly at its temporary, passing height right now but should it grow to persuasive and enduring notability, then the paragraph about it at India–United States relations could be forked out to an article. WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:NOTNEWS rules apply. A civil servant breaking employment law is not encyclopaedic and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — O'Dea (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are there two articles on this woman? Devyani Khobragade incident and Devyani Khobragade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.215.120.5 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Devyani Khobragade is moved to and redirected to Devyani Khobragade incident. Please refer up. Cheers AKS

Correction. I stand corrected, I was wrong. Someone went and created the page back. On 17th Dec, I wrote this page and after AfD and subsequent discussions, I moved it to the 'incident' page as I agree with the comments. Can someone please move the diplomat's page to the 'incident' page please? Cheers AKS

Keep The subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources beyond a single event and satisfies GNG. -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major diplomatic incedent.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notble incident. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it remains as major incident after one month, we can reconsider to include it as a section under India–United_States_relations - Prodigyhk (talk) 10:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable because of its coverage internationally. 117.195.83.65 (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Link (Ghana)

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

The Charity Commission website shows that this organisation most recently reported an annual income of £1000 and has not reported more than £6000 in previous years. It's not notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small charity that hasn't generated significant reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalala Oliver Sepiso

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

Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, as a search for information actually about Sepiso turns up no quality references. Almost all of the sources currently cited by the article are either "about" sections on his employer's website, or are articles written by him, not about him. The end result of these citations also leaves the article looking very similar to a resume, and my BEFORE check leads me to believe this may not be solvable. SamHolt6 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suman Chakravorty

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Hitro talk 10:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to pass WP:NJOURNALIST. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 21:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not any reliable sources and journalist is also not notable. Azkord (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mei (Overwatch). Sandstein 12:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yu (voice actress)

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

Non notable (voice) actor. WP:NACTOR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agree: unsourced BLP article, so no evidence of notability demonstrated. And based on what's presented there, the subject almost certainly does not meet WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of secondary sources under the name of "Elise Zhang". STSC (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? Where are these "plenty of secondary sources"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, @STSC:, Zhang's only significant role is as the character Mei from the popular video game Overwatch. I can't find anything substantial about her as an actor, besides the game (WP:INHERIT). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found many sources from Google searches on "Elise Zhang" and "张昱". The article would pass the WP:GNG; "people who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria". It just needs more translated content from the Chinese article[7] which lists other works she has involved in. - STSC (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found many sources... - Post them then. Baseless claims aren't helpful. The Chinese article isn't even properly sourced. It's just as bad. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually in the process of getting some of the sources posted here for discussion. Both English/Chinese articles do need some improvements on the citations. STSC (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Things You Didn’t Know about the Voice of Overwatch’s Mei!

A Warm Meeting And Interview With Elise Zhang Of Mei From Overwatch!

Behind The Voice Actors, GameStart Asia, HBG, SacAnime, Play163, etc... - STSC (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with sources for film articles, but from a WP:VG standpoint, these are not reliable. And it's pretty focused on Overwatch. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have those websites possibly made up the stories? STSC (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mei (Overwatch), where the subject is discussed JOE BRO 64 01:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mei (Overwatch). The sources provided are all about the character, not the voice actress. Sure, she's mentioned, but she's not the primary topic of the coverage, and an actor's notability isn't inherited from their character. Some roles are so massive that they're likely to get coverage of both the character and the individual e.g. Ned Luke and Steven Ogg of Grand Theft Auto V but unfortunately that's just the way media coverage works. SITH (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as G11, A7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No/Hugs

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

@Beinganiceperson and Hikoulini: Queried speedy delete for "not notable" and "advertizing". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Anthony Appleyard: were you trying to remove the other two deletion templates with your deletion nomination? Richard3120 (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beinganiceperson and Hikoulini: User:Beinganiceperson speedy-delete-tagged it. I deleted it. User:Hikoulini complained in my user talk page. I undeleted it and AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

User:Beinganiceperson Anthony Appleyard I have reformatted and added a lot of national as well as international press to back up every fact on the wikipedia page for No/Hugs as well as re-formatted it based on other similar band pages.If you could take a look and kindly give me some more feedback I'd really appreciate it. 2601:1C2:100:4B22:E016:6104:22A7:40A0 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hikoulini (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Hikoulini Anthony Appleyard I have seen no improvement to third-party sources or national press on the article. Perhaps, you are misled on what reliable "National" and "international" sources mean. I still see sourcing back to bands website and Facebook pages, very local international press, and at best some small regional press but not in depth enough about said subject, or proving notability at all, and unfortunately they aren't reliable sources that display the bands notability or keep worth on Wikipedia. 2601:1C2:100:4B22:E016:6104:22A7:40A0 (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Klugman

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

The only two refs given here do not look like they add up to notability. Google search results in IMDb, Wikipedia and mirror sites, along with listings in directories and places like Spokeo. In-depth discussion in reliable independent secondary sources seems to be lacking. No awards, only appearances as one-off characters in a few televisions shows. A loose noose (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - While his roles as an actor may be small and not meet the muster of WP:NACTOR's "significant roles in multiple [...] television shows", they are numerous, and along with the fact that he easily satisfies WP:DIRECTOR's "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] (for example, a film, [...])" for The Words (film), which was a major motion picture given its cast, budget, and distribution and received mainstream, albeit poor, reviews, makes the case that he is certainly notable enough as a filmmaker. JesseRafe (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incomplete quote from paragraph 3 of WP:DIRECTOR. The whole quote also stipulates that "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work, for example, a book, film, or television series.." (emphasis mine). I have not yet seen any evidence that "The Words" has itself received that kind of heightened attention, and am not surprised considering the kinds of reviews it got. What would really change my mind, however, would be discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources. If these can be shown to exist, i will gladly withdraw my nomination. A loose noose (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a misunderstanding of how it was written, as the bullets apply to a wide range of creative outputs and one has to parse the disjunctions accordingly, it is not written to require each element be satisfied. If you read the bold: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." it is clear that is satisfies as stated above. They don't have to be good reviews, but it was widely reviewed by mainstream critics nonetheless. JesseRafe (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The monument

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

This is disambiguation page is incorrectly titled (it disambiguates only places called "The Monument" with a capital M). The Monument exists as a redirect to Monument to the Great Fire of London, which I think is the primary topic so this should be redirected to that article and hatnotes added. If there isn't a primary topic then this dab page should be moved to the capitalised title or redirected to Monument (disambiguation) where I have added the Californian house as an entry. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. 10:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Necrothesp: if this isn't a dab page it should be a redirect to either a disambiguation page or to the primary topic (almost certainly Monument to the Great Fire of London). Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly, although I can't imagine anyone linking "The monument" in lower case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. WP:SNOW close. I've posted on WP:EDUN about this class. It's clear that this will not remain in mainspace at this time, and also that the student's work shouldn't be deleted entirely at this time. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons to the legalization of marijuana

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

While interesting, this is nothing more than a personal essay on the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace. Remagoxer (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace. Worthy information that can be added into similar articles. –eggofreason^talk 00:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace. It was written for an educational project, so I'd rather not discourage a new editor by total deletion, but userify it with some feedback to the editor. Though not ideal, Arguments for and against drug prohibition can probably serve as a partial example for improvement. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stephen Hillenburg. Sandstein 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United Plankton Pictures

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

The company that made SpongeBob SquarePants, a notable subject, is itself not notable because notability is not inherited. Other than that, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Lordtobi (✉) 10:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although it's SpongeBob, not SpongBob. Fixed it for you. Remagoxer (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is all about SpongeBob SquarePants. A mention of the production company could be added to the main article but there's nothing in here to justify a stand alone article and searches don't find anything significant that's not related to SpongeBob.. Neiltonks (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm always uncomfortable with these type of nominations that are filed days after an associated subject dies. The sourcing here is not problematic in the least and it looks like an average production company article. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mrschimpf, the article wasn't notable even prior to Hillenburg's death, but we can be pretty much certain that it will stay unnotable. The sourcing here is problematic because the only source used for information about the subject is an extract from California's SoS to source the incorporation date of the company. We do not even have any source saying that Hillenburg founded the company (that's just trainspotting). Lordtobi (✉) 15:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article already has references that show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore passes WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, where do you see significant coverage? There is one database entry for the incorporation date, and the other sources justify list entries. Exactly zero sources discuss the topic itself in any way. This is not significant coverage. For full disclosure, the article formerly hosted one additional sentence about the United Plankton Charitable Trust, which was also founded by Hillenburg but is unconnected to the production company; the sentence has since been removed. Lordtobi (✉) 15:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It is significant coverage of the company's products but more coverage of the workings of the company would be good Atlantic306 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Atlantic306, exactly, but there is no such coverage out there (otherwise I would have long added it), which is why it fails WP:GNG. Good coverage of its products as means of keeping this article is inherited notability, which does not exist. Lordtobi (✉) 15:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:DIRECTORY, and as it stands the article is just a directory and appears unlikely to be possible to advance beyond that. NoCOBOL (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to (probably) Stephen Hillenburg. There is little information here that is not already in the articles about Stephen Hillenburg and SpongeBob SquarePants - the exact date of incorporation is probably the main new information. There is one reference which is not included in either of the main articles, which is actually not about the production company but about the charity which shares its name, the United Plankton Charitable Trust - it would be good to include info about that in the Hillenburg article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stephen Hillenburg - The article itself is limited in new information, but new information is there. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability. Merge any relevant info to Stephen Hillenburg HighKing⁺⁺ 16:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stephen Hillenburg. A functional WP:ATD-M that could improve the suggested merge target article a bit. This title is also a likely search term; see WP:ATD-R for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Stephen Hillenburg. It's a likely search term, although it offers very little information which is already provided by other articles especially the target. — Mediran [talk] 14:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (Memphis May Fire album)

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

Procedural nomination: Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 November 23#Broken (Memphis May Fire album) for further information. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the previous discussion. @Jax 0677, Walter Görlitz, Ibbus93, and Thryduulf: You have been pinged. Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The lead single is talked about in two of the references, and there are reviews here, here, here, here, here and here. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article can not be kept, it should be merged. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to merging the content into a one-paragraph section in the band's article (as that's what most of the independent sources are giving it). That makes perfect sense. If a redirect is the solution, the redirect could point to that section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There have been a total of 12 references supplied to date and I cannot find more. To meet WP:GNG the album has to have 1) significant coverage 2) in reliable sources 3) that are independent of the subject. The following are brief, WP:ROUTINE coverage http://bringthenoise.com/blog/qa-matty-mullins-talks-new-memphis-may-fire http://bringthenoise.com/blog/the-noise-presents-atreyus-in-our-wake-tour-with http://loudwire.com/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-the-old-me-single/ https://www.altpress.com/news/memphis-may-fire-broken-album-old-me-song/ http://www.metalsucks.net/2018/08/27/atreyu-announce-tour-with-memphis-may-fire-and-ice-nine-kills/ https://www.facebook.com/revolvermag/videos/506190199881714/ while https://www.allmusic.com/album/broken-mw0003211617/releases is just a database entry: no review or anything significant. The following is not a reliable source https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/memphis-may-fire/broken.p/ The following are not independent of the subject https://open.spotify.com/album/6OjdYx9U5k0Tex2SAKyDSh https://twitter.com/memphismayfire/status/1042217362978754567. In short it fails GNG. It in no way meets WP:NALBUM either. A redirect is not an option since it went through RfD and the decision was that it should be restored it, so it's clear that they do not think it should be a redirect and they would not discuss the lack of sources. No double-jeopardy. As for the "notable single" notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so the single can have an article, but there are no sources for the album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Walter Gorlitz:, if "The following are independent of the subject", what exactly is the problem? The lead single is a part of the album. If the article can not be kept, it should be merged as a plausible search term. I brought it to WP:RFD because there was a dispute about whether it should be a redirect or an article. I did not put deletion of the history on the table, which I believe should not happen in this case. "Double jeopardy" is irrelevant in this particular case. Have you read any of the reviews that I posted above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no reason to redirect to the band or to delete altogether. Both nominations may have been based on the article's current sourcing, rather than what it could be per the WP:NEXIST standard. Jax (above) has found plenty of worthy reviews in that genre's usual publications. There was also advance media notice for the album before its release, indicting widespread interest in the band and any new product from them. The article already has a couple such announcements, I also found some in the generally reliable Loudwire [8] and Blabbermouth [9]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doomsdayer520: There is a reason to delete or redirect. The reasons given were based on many sources. Please read what is written before you make inaccurate statements. Your new source, http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/memphis-may-fire-to-release-broken-album-in-november-the-old-me-single-available/, is brief coverage that is ROUTINE. Can you find either significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or other indications that the album itself is notable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your comments then read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AGF. And "independent of the subject" means not written by the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Walter Gorlitz:, "Have you read any of the reviews that I posted above"? "If The following are independent of the subject, what exactly is the problem"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent of the subject" does not mean "not written by the band" exclusively. It means not paid for by the band, or their record company or anyone associated with the band. However, the Tweets, etc. are the only ones I categorized that way. Jax, I looked at the reviews of the song, but did not find significant coverage of the albums there. Was there any? What exactly do they have to say about the album itself that you think constitutes significant coverage? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You said above that "The following are independent of the subject" regarding the Spotify and Facebook articles. It is difficult to talk about an album without talking about the songs, and if the 6 reviews that I mentioned above talk about most of the songs, they are effectively talking about the album. I am not going to paste the whole review in here, so please tell me what about the six reviews that I posted at 17:03 on 30 November 2018 make them not acceptable? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm! Thanks for the clarification. I also moved the Facebook link up to the short entry section. I looked at the reviews this time and I'll have to look deeper. I'll take your word if you claim they're all RSes. They would qualify as SC from RSes if that's the case, and I would change my survey if that's the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the album deserves an article. The sources has been criticized but there are new reviews and articles about the record coming from Sputnikmusic and Deadpress, totally reliable sources. Ibbus93 (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- https://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/78414/Memphis-May-Fire-Broken/ is a user review! http://www.deadpress.co.uk/album-review-memphis-may-fire-broken/ is written by Damon Taylor who is listed as staff, but it's currently not considered a reliable source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deadpress is totally reliable. This discussion is garbage, how can you define a source not reliable because of a Google Chrome warning? Probably there was a problem with HTTPS. Since last versions, if the site doens't run on HTTPS, Google Chrome told you that the website is not safe and right now Deadpress doens't run on HTTPS. Ibbus93 (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. You should raise it at WP:RSN. Until that decision changes though, it is categorized as not reliable. That it doesn't allow for a secure connection is problematic for different reasons. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - If WP:RSN says something clearly dumb (i.e., a source is found unreliable because of a Google Chrome warning) then we can use our common sense and not follow the discussion there. There is no reason to open a new RfC simply to dismiss the previous one - WP:RSN is just a comments space open to all editors and most discussions there aren't closed by an admin (the one were discussing wasn't), so a discussion here is equally as valid as one there. No valid reasoning was given for finding Deadpress to be non-RS. It appears to have professional staff and thus qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG in the music field. That and this piece in Revolver means that the album clearly has WP:SIGCOV in two reliable sources, and as such meets WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Passing mention in Revolver not significant coverage, but with a few more passing mentions we may get to GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mention? They talk about it for three paragraphs. The definition of significant coverage is that it "addresses the topic directly and in detail". In the Revolver article we are told the following information about Broken: 1) The central theme of the album ("We are all broken people because life is not perfect"), 2) The lead single from the album ("The Old Me.") and details of how the video for it was shot, 3)The musical style ("Rock heavy"). Clearly WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading the same piece. I see that they talk about brokenness, mention the album's "central themes" and a video for the single but don't really talk about the album itself. What are the tracks? Who's the producer? When and where was it recorded? I don't know much more about the album after reading that piece than I did before I read it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV merely requires that the subject be discussed “directly” (it is repeatedly mentioned by name and various aspects of it discussed) and “in detail” (I.e., details of it are discussed - the theme, musical style, inspiration, the lead single from the album and the making of the video for it). This is clearly not a drive-by mention whilst discussing something else and it provides exactly the kind of detail that an article can be based on. The fact that you can think of details that aren’t there is immaterial - not everything that you might want to know about an album can be sourced. FOARP (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're missing a lot in that part. I asked those specific questions because we are to use "no original research is needed to extract the content" and so without track listings, etc., and yes, everything that I asked about an album can be sourced. That's different than making a wish list and saying it can't be sourced. I'm not asking what the band ate after vocal sessions for the second track. I'm not asking about what type of vehicle they used to arrive at the studio. I'm asking whether basic information can be sourced. It cannot be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you're missing the point of "no original research required to extract the content". That's not "no original research to extract the content I wish to find". That's "no original research is needed to extract the content of the article" - you are not having to guess or use your own knowledge to infer what the reference tells you about the subject. Whether or not a track listing is available for an album is immaterial since it is not an absolutely necessary part of an article about an album. Ditto producer and other details you mentioned. The article merely needs to be able to tell you something relevant about the album, and the Revolver article supplies those. FOARP (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you're missing the point. This is not significant coverage. It's one paragraph in a fluff piece. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One para? I count three:

"Mullins explores his experiences and struggles with anxiety and depression on Memphis May Fire's latest album, the diverse and rock-heavy Broken. "We are all broken people because life is not perfect," the singer points out of one of the album's central themes. "There's beauty in that brokenness because scar tissue is stronger than skin. We grow and become better versions of ourselves having gone through the worst times in life."

The narrative thread of fighting one's demons — and the messiness that goes along with it — is also carried through to the action-packed, violent and bloody video for Broken's lead single "The Old Me." The Marvel-sized clip required 36 hours of filming all throughout a freezing cold night in Santa Clarita, California, special effects makeup to create a stunt double of Mullins and a fight coordinator from the Fast and the Furious movies to make that believable punches were being thrown. Mullins describes the song and video as a "me vs. me" concept that symbolizes the duality that exists inside him, and at-times brutal fight between his anxious and non-anxious states.

Revolver recently caught up with the frontman for a candid and far-reaching conversation about his mental-health issues and EMDR therapy, Broken's message of hope and understanding, the loss of We Came As Romans Kyle Pavone, as well as Mullins' On Point Pomade grooming product business and much more."

(references to the album highlighted in bold) FOARP (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only the third actually says anything about the album. You know, italics are not used for pull quotes either. Read what I wrote above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RU Andromedae

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO, it exists just as a database entry Psyluke (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, the page for deletion was actually RU Andromedae but I typed one wrong letter. So embarassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyluke (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have fixed the above nomination, as well as putting this AFD in the right place. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NASTCRIT. Not naked eye, not discovered before 1850, not in a catalogue of high historical importance, no popular coverage, no technical coverage specific to this star or a small number of stars including this one. I tried to expand the article and came up with virtually nothing except the bare facts of its existence. Lithopsian (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To ensure adequate time as there was a problem with the original listing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. The previous AfD claimed that an entry in General Catalog of Variable Stars met NASTCRIT criterion #2. The nom has offered no counter to this. There is not much turning up in online sources, but there is some coverage [10][11][12][13] ([14])[15]. SpinningSpark 01:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GCVS doesn't meet criterion #2 (IMO, and the opinion of those who have previously deleted dozens of variable star articles). It is a catalogue of some 90,000 stars, the majority of which are very faint and many with tiny amplitudes. Most amateur astronomers would struggle to tell you what the GCVS is and it is hard to claim historical significance for something that didn't exist until 1948. Entries are increasingly being bulk added by methods such as statistical analysis of space-based photometry, for example the 3,000+ stars added from analysis of Hipparcos photometry. For a reductio ad absurdum argument, it would be easy to pick a GCVS star which never gets brighter than 25th magnitude and couldn't possibly be considered notable - try V711 Cas just for fun. Like you, I found a number of mentions for RU And, but couldn't come up with enough for an article. Lithopsian (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about the current contents of the GCVS, but I'm betting its contents when first created were much more select. Observations of RU And. actually predate the catalog's creation. The first ref I gave, for instance, is dated 1905. This is not a star that is "faint and...with a tiny amplitude". It is bright enough for amateur astronomers to find and has an amplitude of nearly five magnitudes. At its brightest it may even be visible with binoculars. SpinningSpark 17:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citing NASTCRIT, only objects discovered before 1850 are eligible for an article of their own, regardless of how much they were studied. The first reference in 1905 doesn't mean anything to astronomical object notability. Moreover, a previously deleted article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V Andromedae) shows a clear counter-example for the notability of GCVS.Psyluke (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness and history geeks, there were around 10,000 entries in the original GCVS publication. I haven't done a statistical study, but inevitably their average brightness would have been much higher than the current catalogue, and unlikely there were any 25th magnitude objects. All of which is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not considering deleting RU And because it is very faint (although if it was a naked-eye object, ever, then it would be automatically notable), and we're not discussing it because it has a small amplitude (there are no criteria relating to amplitude of variability and notability), we're deleting it because an entry in the GCVS is not sufficient to make a star notable, as per previous AfD discussions and my reductio ad absurdum example. Lithopsian (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is essentially that when it was first catalogued it was in a much more select group. According to an article in Baltic Astronomy, the 1943 Astronomische Gesellschaft catalog of variables had 9476 entries. In 1905, the catalog would have been substantially smaller and the star's discovery clearly occured well before that. The 1905 paper is a report of observations made in 1904, and it refers to "previously measured light curves". I can't manage to find the year of discovery online, but it has to predate 1904. SpinningSpark 22:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I only found a couple of data entries in published papers. It's non-notable by itself, so I suggest a merge/redirect to List of stars in Andromeda. Praemonitus (talk)

Comment. The star appears in Edward Charles Pickering's list of long-period variables magnitude 9 or brighter from 1911. The list has 372 entries; much shorter than the 1948 GCVS's 10,000 entries. This index shows that the star has discussion in Popular Astronomy on at least two pages in 1903, and one in 1904. This gets it much closer to NASTCRIT criterion #2, "of interest to amateur astronomers". SpinningSpark 09:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per spinning spark. FOARP (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BigBreaks

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

Originally PROD'd with the rationale "Non-notable advert; everything WP is not, and undisclosed paid editing against the terms-of-use.[16]". The PROD was contested; the article is still an advert about a non-notable company. ——SerialNumber54129 09:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The few sources out there are clearly just based on company press releases. There is nothing that could be called independent and in-depth.Glendoremus (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is too promotional in tone and style, and lacks any sources that establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Indian-language sources—This is a domestic Indian private firm. The ability to find documentation on US and European firms which are private is difficult, and this being an Indian domestic company multiplies that difficulty. I've done a bit of chopping and revision to the article, adding two citations (one of these certain does not contribute to notabiity). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing the reliable source coverage for it to meet WP:BASIC Oddparents (talk) 10:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 21:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iouri Bekichev

Withdrawn by Norminator

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

Subject is an MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP PER WP:NMMA. The guidance literally tells you that a fighter can be notable if they "[h]ave fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization", on his page there are SEVEN (7) fights listed under events held by Fighting Network Rings, which according to the list that the guidance refers you to, is a now-defunct but formerly top-tier MMA organisation. I really do not understand why people make these one-sentence AfD proposals with such obvious and unexplained flaws. Before wiping out the work of other editors, you should at least do the work necessary to confirm that it is necessary to do so. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FOARP As per Sherdog.com, subject fight under these promotions see here [17]. Fighting Network Rings seems not organize the events as per Sherdog. Do clarify if I have missed something there. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They list it as "Rings" which is just another name for Fighting Rings per the Fighting Network Rings page, the events this guy fought at are also listed amongst those organised by Fighting Rings on this page, the conclusion is clearly that this guy fought in events organised by Fighting Rings, a top-tier MMA organisation (or one that was top-tier at the time the fights took place per the list). Again, if you're going to nominate something for AfD, unless the nom is really, really straight-forward, then you're going to have to explain why it should be deleted in some detail. Otherwise it just looks like you didn't do WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FOARP The ref indicated on this page still go back to Sherdog.com and it doesnt indicate the promotion promote Fighting Netwok Rings produce Ring event. The Fighting Network Rings page does not indicate they promote ring events and the fighter page has no source to indicate such as well. Anywhere, thank you for the info. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mihail Apostolov (fighter)

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

Subject is an MMA fighter. Fails WP:NMMA CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His MMA "career" appears to have been a 63 second loss so he fails WP:NMMA. A lack of significant independent coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage is not enough to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Student suicides at Indian Institutes of Technology

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

This topic is notable but consisted of something that might have been a transcript, a long list of students, and some overall statistics. The overall statistics were unsourced. The long list of students presented WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS concerns. When removed the page basically has no content. I suggest that this page be deleted (the history of the students names should be erased) and then this topic redirected to the IIT article, where I have incorporated the one remaining sentence. If it then needs to be split back out in the future due to expansion, it can be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article was a list of names of students at Indian Institutes of Technology who have committed suicide in the last few years. Especially considering these students don't seem to be notable for any other reason than their suicide, including the names of the deceased is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy, which requires us to consider the impact that this kind of article has on the privacy of families and survivors of these incidents. A relevant policy is WP:BLPNAME. This is not the same thing as List of suicides, which deliberately restricts inclusion in the list to individually notable people.
For this reason, the article's history, which still has the list of names, should be deleted. If any editor is interested in writing about the issue of student suicides in general, then I would suggest that they start by adding that information in prose in a subsection of Indian Institutes of Technology, and if that section grows unwieldy, it can be split off at a later date. Mz7 (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as well as the original list of named (and non notable) people this would also fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ajf773 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mz7 hits the nail on the head here Spiderone 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above SalmanZ (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The excessive table details would imply that there is a notable official list of students. However, given that there isn't such a list, it should not be the Wikipedia editor's job to construct a list as original research or WP:LISTCRUFT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft:IIT Suicides should also be removed if AFD goes through. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree that Draft:IIT Suicides should be also deleted. Capitals00 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Column Podcast

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NWEB. The only reliable source that has written about the subject is Reason.com, and its coverage appears to be both not terribly in depth and distinctly promotional to the extent of arguably not being independent. All other coverage, whether in the article or WP:BEFORE, appears to be non-notable blogs and entries in podcast databases. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the significant coverage in independent sources that would merit a separate article. Catrìona (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with editors above, there's lots of drive-by mentions of it but nothing that rises to the level of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough independent sources to establish this podcast's notability. Modeov (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Golam Mohammad Rabbani

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

The subject is not notable and does meet the guidelines for politicians. He has not been elected to any office. The article seems like a vanity project and has been edited by him/or a user who shares his name. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userfy It's not even as much of a politician article as it is a general biography article. His position is equivalent to like Republican/Democrat County Chapter President in the US, except without having any public office. As for current sources, 1 and 2 are dead links. Source 6 (which is cited as many times) is published by a company he works for and is therefore not independent. 7, 8 and 9 are all passing mentions. However, within the past couple weeks, there's been a lot of coverage on him because he's trying to run for offices but some officials won't accept his nomination papers, apparently because he wants Bangladesh to be a social welfare state. Article fociusing on him here If he winds up getting elected, then it could be moved back out into the mainspace. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article just for existing, but the references aren't reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of clearing WP:GNG — they're all either primary sources that do not demonstrate notability at all, or glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him. No prejudice against recreation if he actually wins the election he's currently running in, but even if that happens the article will still have to be written and sourced a lot differently than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Dearle

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

It is my belief that this does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia. The individual produced several works during their life, but none of any notability or influence on later creators. References do exist to the individual, but these are passing references and do not meet the requirements of WP:N "Significant Coverage". The individual did, during their lifetime, win an award for their work but neither the work nor the award appears to hold any particular significance. As such, I propose this for deletion. I do believe that I could have proposed this under PROD, but as I am a newcomer to Wikipedia and have already proposed an article for deletion under that process already I thought it best to ensure I am not acting out of line, as the fact that I am so easily finding these articles suggests to me that my understanding of what should and shouldn't be on Wikipedia is flawed. NoCOBOL (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NoCOBOL (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page lists number of references, albeit 19th century references, that appear to sustain notability. Winning a prize also indicates notability. Since notability, once gained, is permanent, the lack of more modern sources indicating notability does not matter. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a hard one to judge based on the amount of 19th-century print sources, but I'm going to say keep on this one. Source 1 on the page is most definitely significant coverage, and if it can in fact be verified that he helped found a notable institution in Trinity College London (the college has nothing for nineteenth-century history on its website), that would further cement notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW keep; there are clearly editorial issues but those should be discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egede, Enugu

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

It's not clear to me what, if anything, in this article is citable to the sources, but - I daresay this town exists, it is just possible it's notable, but "you can't get there from here" - if there is to be an article about it, you wouldn't start with that one. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The town certainly exists and the nomination's tentative comment about this indicates that WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed. The topic therefore passes WP:GEOLAND and the rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is citable to the sources is simply a page-quality issue, AfD is not clean-up. we have to WP:AGF that the editor who wrote this did rely on the sources to write it unless there is some reason to believe otherwise. As such it is a sourced article. Also, per WP:GEOLAND an inhabited ___location should be presumed notable so long as it actually exists, and it clearly does. FOARP (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. The key question here is is the town notable?, not is the article perfectly sourced?. Google Maps verifies that this town exists, which definitely makes it pass WP:GEOLAND. AfD is not the place for 'is it sourced' questions, that should really go to the talk page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 16:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs a major rewrite, but it's a populated place. I'll add that Google Maps is NOT a reliable source for this kind of stuff. [18] [19] SportingFlyer talk 23:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tatyana Shagalova

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

A non-notable dubbing Russian actress.--RTY9099 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable dubbing actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR FWIW. Rzvas (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://skytopstrategies.com/white-house-wake-call/

[2] ttps://skytopstrategies.com/global-cyber-security-rome/

[1]

[2]