Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 November	8 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Whaley

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not appear to have played major roles in any of the listed series. Does not pass WP:GNG. If his best known roles are from Walmart commercials, as the lead says, then it's pretty safe to say he's not notable by WP:NACTOR. Previously nominated for PROD by me, sat there for a week until an admin (correctly) dePRODed it because an article for this subject has already been deleted by PROD before. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signifcant coverage from reliable notable secondary sources (Sheen Magazine aside, and that is an interview and not an independent coverage) so fails WP:GNG, the article relies on IMDB and bio sites (roles are all either guest ones or recurring on Under the Dome). He may be notable in the future, but not now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I did several Google News searches for Mike Whaley and TV series. Most often the result was IMDB record that could be self-published. One other possible reference at Vinereport.com says that he was a guest star at Under the Dome (TV series), so non even at the main cast.-- Gprscrippers (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character actor. Non notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirase Rasool

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

Non first-class cricketer, has played at only under-19 level for the Netherlands. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON. I believe I nominated for PROD about a week ago. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, no evidence that they pass any notability standards. Spike 'em (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probable delete for now, although this source is a decent one that could be used at some point in the future and there is some other routine coverage as well, but nothing really in depth and/or independent enough to make me thing that there's scope for a stand alone article here yet. One solution might be to redirect the article to Netherlands national under-19 cricket team for now and see what happens in the future. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as above. Alex-h (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. There is only one reference for him at Google News and it is a blog post. Local Wikipedia (Dutch) has 0 mentions for him. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance of Certification for Surgery

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

Unreferenced and clearly copied and pasted from somewhere. There is a much better article at Maintenance of Certification. This doesn't seem to add anything significant to that. Bigwig7 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete pure spam. should have speedied. Jytdog (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably should have been G11. If notable, it would need to be entirely rewritten anyway. Natureium (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerena Rivera

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

Time for another AfD. The previous two had so many GRG SPAs that any conclusions from them are meaningless. No meaningful coverage besides routine notes such as obituaries, and we're left with WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. When you strip away the information on other people, alleged longevity standings, and alleged records, there is essentially just trivia fluff about her family and info that fits in a list left. The article clearly fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality belong on a list, where they are easier to view, not this permanent WP:PERMASTUB. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Once the fancruft trivia of various old-age rankings is removed, we have a non-notable biography, besides this person's exceptional longevity. Her entry in the list of American supercentenarians is sufficient. — JFG ^talk 03:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Of the 5 references, source three doesn't work so can't comment on it. Sources one (1 slide of out 51 for a powerpoint) and three (a GRG table) only tell us her name, age and country. The two obituaries, while they go to two different sites, are actually the same article so only count as one reference. One WP:ROUTINE obituary and two references which only confirm name and residence does not make someone notable. Put her on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per JFG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just living super long is not enough to make someone notable. Especially since in some ways it is not so much living a long time, but being recorded as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. There was also an 2015 article article at TIME in 2015 where she was mentioned, but it was a passing mention, more like an image caption. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyorrhoea

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

nn band surviver AfD in 2008 simply because our attitude was lax. Since then nothing was added to assert notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and there is not enough in depth coverage of them that I found JC7V-talk 19:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to give information about any band activity. Alex-h (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Najamuddin Ahmed

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

The only source which has been cited in the article is one about the Chisti Order, not the subject of the article. That same citation has been copy pasted across Wikipedia in rather questionable articles, almost as if piggy-backing off of that Order's renown. I haven't been able to find anything on this specific individual, though there was a handful of sources referring to a modern individual by the same name in passing. This has been tagged for almost a decade; the chance for it to pass WP:GNG is over. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources cited as references do not mention the subject beit the reference with a footnote or the others. Not shown to be notable. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbiriya

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

Searches for this Order have turned up hits only on social media and extended Wikimedia pages. There is a presence in terms of photo uploads to Wikimedia Commons as well as Wikivisually, and I found a Facebook page. The organization appears to have its own official (amateurish) website. Aside from that, I haven't found anything to establish even the most basic notability required for WP:GNG. Also, part of the text is copied from the Chisti article, which is about an Order that actually is notable; a number of non-notable articles have also featured copy-paste from the Chisti article, signaling a pattern. This seems like yet another attempt by obscure South Asian religious groups to exploit Wikipedia as a means of generating fame for themselves. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NORG, this maybe a kind of groupuscule but not sufficiently notable to passe notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Web Intelligence Consortium

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

Notability; page likely created by org, or somebody connected to org; questionable if org still exists, logo from more than a decade ago LikeMeercats (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my initial nom, look at the sources, primary not secondary LikeMeercats (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The organisation is involved in a "Web Intelligence Chile" conference next month [1] so does still exist. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, their own website is littered with 404 links and is little updated, the article refs are 404 or primary. I think they do something but it isn't enough for inclusion here. Szzuk (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zerto

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Zero coverage, fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Quite an old article but never really been sourced, and slightly promotional. scope_creep (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep per scope_creep; ~~a highly WP:PROMOTIONAL article on a not-notable company.~~ Chetsford (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could use a refresh, but flagship product Reviewed two weeks ago in PCmag.com https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2500054,00.asp Vonfraginoff (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vonfraginoff. Since nomination I have included that pcmag reference and made the article more product than corporation focused and hopefully edged down promotional aspects a little. Wish I had more time to work the product detail up a little.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by the independent pcmag review above (+ a few others I see in a search) that the company's main/sole product - "Zerto Virtual Replication" - is notable. The company is probably notable as well (e.g. see these items in Calcalist - [2][3], which interestingly - notability wise - [4] excludes them in 2018 on the basis of "The following list does not include six of Israel’s most successful technology startups: online payments company Payoneer Inc., content distribution companies Taboola Inc. and Outbrain Inc., disaster recovery software company Zerto Inc., data storage company Infinidat Ltd., and mobile and web monetization company IronSource Ltd.. Having grabbed the top spots on Calcalist’s ranking in previous years, we believe these companies, some already generating annual sales in the high hundreds of millions, have already matured beyond the scope of the current list."), and it doesn't seem to make sense, in this case, to have a separate company and product page. Icewhiz (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the pcmag is enough to establish notability. Chetsford I would like to withdraw this, if your cool about it. scope_creep (talk) 12:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination scope_creep (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Quite snowy. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Izharul Islam

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

Professional qualification is not only evidence for notability. Failed WP:GNG ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He receives consistent coverage as the leader of a notable political party and co-founder of a notable political pressure group.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] WP:POLOUTCOMES says "Leaders of registered political parties at the national ... level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success." This seems to be such a case, where there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like he meets WP:NPOL and per Worldbruce. --nafSadh ^{did say} 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- First of all, nom's deletion rationale makes no sense. Second, as noted by above editors the guy clearly meets GNG not only as the head of a notable political party but also as a fugitive from the law in 2014. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is mentioned many times at The Daily Star, the largest circulating English-language newspaper in Bangladesh. 1, 2, 3. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable – and of interest to the general public. /Julle (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFM Khalid Hossain

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

Professional qualification is not only evidence for notability. Failed WP:GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 08:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROF. --nafSadh ^{did say}
Delete as failing WP:NACADEMIC. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Evans (supercentenarian)

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

No independent notability established beyond his exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. Contrary to the previous and next masculine longevity record-holders, Alphaeus Philemon Cole and Henry Allingham, there is nothing worth preserving in this person's biography. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the utter lack of secondary sources, WP:NOTINHERITED, and the usual problems with similar attempts at articles. And, to boot, language in the article reads like a failed attempt to make it seem like getting super old is some kind of sport. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. Longevity is not a contest as this heavily padded article tries to claim and there is no article when you remove the padding about records, other individuals, and the standard longevity secret. There is also no policy or guideline that the "oldest X" is notable, and even GWR didn't find this so called achievement worth continuing to note for a 10 year period after he died. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. There is no article here. It's just longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors, oldest to get a pacemaker, etc. Entry in a list is enough. And what is one meant to make of this sentence: "Guinness World Records had recognised Evans as the "world's oldest man" in 1989, but let the title lapse after his death, only to bring it back in 2000"? CommanderLinx (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Living exceptionally long is not alone grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While Nom's rationale was strictly valid (albeit vague) there is consensus that sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate sufficient notability (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kirity Roy

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

Not notable— Preceding unsigned comment added by CowMilk (talk • contribs)

Keep There's significant coverage about him in the Express, etc.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 14:01, 5 November 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 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- A clear cut case. Sources already in the article establish pass of GNG. Nom fails to propound valid deletion rationale. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 2009 book and another one in 2012 both mention him at the "Acknowledgements" sections. He is mentioned by Aljazeera, The Hindustan Times and The Hindu. I assume that he is notable civil rights activist in India. --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gyandeep Borah

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

Non notable business person, no coverage, just listings, fails WP:GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are from sites that aggregate company data. No independent RS cited.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG currently Spiderone 20:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I couldn't find reliable sources to support his notability. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While subject may fail to satisfy NMODEL (or alternatively, GNG on grounds of being a model) there is firm agreement that she qualifies under WP:NACTOR instead. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Lamung

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

WP:NMODEL is not a very well developed policy, but I don't see this model satisfies WP:GNG, although according to what is written they were winner of Miss Intercontinental Myanmar 2014, a local beauty pagent, they were only placed in top 16 of the actual international version Miss Intercontinental 2014. They have had leading roles in Burmese movies, but I'm not sure if these are notable. IThe sources provided don't seem reliable, it is difficult to verify the information provided in the article. Polyamorph (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : She is also a actress, she did leading roles in 3 Big screen movie and 1 notable Burmese film. This Kamayut media source is a strong one: independant, focused and coverage of her. and this one Popular News Journal source it showing about of her big screen movies. There are many local sources about of her acting career [15], [16], [17], [18]. I don't know National rank pageant beauty queen are notable or not! After beauty queen, she became an actress and acted leading role. it clearly seen notable. Ye Wai Yan Aung (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a well-known Burmese actor who has played lead and major featured roles in several Burmese films, easily passing WP:NACTOR. The press in local The Popular newspaper gives further background. Hanakoshunlet (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, clearly passes WP:NACTOR with leading roles in Burmese big screen and films.Ko Ko Chit Chit (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per above and starred female lead in Big screen. I don't think this article needs to be deleted. 43.224.84.144 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Warrington

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

Small town politician that fails WP:NPOL ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's mentioned in a number of histories of Nauvoo and the events surrounding the death of Joseph Smith, as I summarized in expanding the article slightly. No coverage is in-depth, but it's borderline when combined per WP:BASIC. The key question for me is whether this source, a biographical entry in the digital edition of the Joseph Smith Papers project, is a reliable secondary source; if it is, Warrington is notable, because it gives substantial coverage about his birth, career, and death based on what seems to be carefully compiled primary sources (censuses, local archives, etc). The project says it's been endorsed by the National Archives’ National Historical Publications and Records Commission, which sounds impressive.

If not kept, it's worth merging a few sentences to Nauvoo Expositor, as his role as the sole dissenter to its destruction is well-documented and noted in many histories of the event. FourViolas (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Warrington was a member of a city council in the second largest city in Illinois. However it boils down to he is really notable for the vote he cast and later being on a grand jury. None of this is enough to make him individually notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete comes nowhere close to meeting notability criteria at present. It's not even close unless there's something that's totally missing from the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think this is close to WP:BASIC's pathway to notability through non-substantial but more than trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources? FourViolas (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that sets the bar really low and that there's nothing inherently notable in his life which should cause us to create a page on him. The trial of Smith, yes, OK - and he might be mentioned by name there. But that's really it unless we want to be creating pages on a huge number of local politicians. Honestly, every high school and many primary school headteachers would get a wiki page if we set the bar at that level, as well as just about very local councillor. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete None of the sources in the article talk about him substantively - they're all just passing mentions with the exception of the one which talks about the city council incident with the press, in which he's mentioned three times for his comments on the city council. I reviewed a handful of the sources at random at Joseph Smith papers and didn't see anything which covered him significantly (if there's a good one I missed please ping me and I will re-assess). I think some of the information could be merged somewhere, and I'm really more of a neutral vote than anything else, but if forced to make a decision I don't think there's enough here to keep on WP:GNG grounds. SportingFlyer talk 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per .John Pack Lambert. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to PopCap Games. I have gone ahead and merged it/redirected. If anyone sees anything I missed, please feel free to add it. Its history is still available at Alchemy (video game) TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy (video game)

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

Mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. Admittedly with a good resource from Time Magazine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think PopCap Games could stand some significant improvement based on the sources I'm seeing, but at least that looks notable. Delete and/or redirect to the developer. --Izno (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to PopCap Games. Rzvas (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per atd, nn in its own right. Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KENW (TV). A merger can take place from history if desired. Sandstein 12:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Living with Sheryl Borden

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

Nominating this to AfD for a deletion discussion, as it was deprodded.

In my WP:BEFORE search I was not able to find a single secondary source or coverage of any kind that is not primary or blogs (most of them come fron KENW where it is airing) to approve notability, something this show was supposed to have considering it is still currently airing in syndication so per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES we should not assume there are sources that do not exist. WP:TVSERIES complements WP:GNG in sense that absence of sources is more defintive than the geographical range of the said program. It was tagged for verification issues since 2016. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with KENW (TV) Both this and the distributor (WestLink) go into that article anyways. 76 cycles of a public TV show carried since 1976 is certainly notable in itself, but I'm just not seeing sustaining coverage that would keep this separate, and there's good room to describe the show in the KENW article. Nate • (chatter) 15:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Chaudhary

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

I think this article doesn't qualify for an article and doesn't have enough references. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the Techradar source suggests that he was a headliner of the event they're actually writing about, which might lend itself to notability, but there don't seem to be any other useful reliable sources at all. Ninth-most-viewed Hindi tech vlogger also doesn't seem all that noteworthy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading the nom's comment, noting that the number of references currently cited on any article does not determine notability; indeed, this a a key part of Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. I believe that WP:GNG is met due to a wide range of adequate sources that could be cited in the article. Many are not of the best quality or are listings, but per no fixed amount of sources are required for any article. One is a standard listing article [19] (in itself, not a quality source) that provides a descent claim to significance for TechnicalGuruji (Chuaudhary's YouTube channel). Another is an article from the Economic Times [20] which, while also fairly short, specifically notes Technical Guruji as one of two channels that YouTube has focused their advertising campaign around. One of the better sources [21] that could be added to the article is an interview (published in Mint (newspaper)) in which the head of entertainment for YouTube India makes multiple mentions of Technical Guruji; quoting "Also, in a country we are now buying so many gadgets, that channels like Technical Guruji have become a reference point for consumers and are a vital part of the consumer’s journey as they start to make a purchase." That is fairly clearly enough to entertain the possibility of a SIGCOV argument. Also working the significance angle, here is a (albeit, a possible trivial mention) brief article in which the Times of India reports on Paramarsh announcement that Gaurav Chaudhary, otherwise known as ‘technical guruji’, is being invited to that year's event. I will also note that, due to Technical Guruji being the name of Chaudary's famous YouTube channel, many more search results can be found using the channel's name as opposed to his own. A WP:BEFORE should be conducted for both names, just in case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also noting that the "first" AfD listed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaurav Chaudhary) is in regards to an actor of the same name.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why wasn't this article deleted? Aggarwala2727 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first AfD was filed in regards to an article about a completely different individual. They just happen to have the same name.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment no credible sources but strong following (1 Million+ subscribers at youtube).

Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has overall 10 million-plus subscribers. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are not an overly large amount of credible sources, but there are a few as listed above. The Mint Interview [22] with YouTube India's spokesperson is credible, as is the Economic times article. Note that only one reliable, verifiable source is needed to establish the notability of the subject; all else is cleanup and not a reason for deletion per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With over 9.7 million subscribers to Technical Guruji, his channel is the most subscribed Hindi tech channel, and stands at the 5th position among all tech channels, per the cited source of the article. His channel also seems to be the most viewed Hindi tech channel. So he is obviously popular, but as far as WP notability is concerned, it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. BTW, there is a short biography of him at the Amazon, but we don't know regarding the quality of that kindle edition. In any case, that would count as a single in-depth source. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk: would you be willing to comment on the sources I cited in my Keep vote? They are not the best, to be sure, but I think they at least establish the notability of the subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6, there is no doubt that the reliable sources cited by you show that his videos are making impact on the Hindi-speaking masses, and his large number of subscribers show that he is popular. So he is 'notable' in that sense. But this project's notability requires healthy amount of reliable & independent coverage in multiple sources, so that we can have an NPOV-based standalone article. As I mentioned earlier, there is one potential in-depth source, but I am unable to locate multiple in-depth sources. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toh Weibin

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

Unfortunately fails general notability guidelines and BLP. Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not aware of any SNG for Scrabble players, but I don't see the coverage to show WP:GNG is met. There's no significant coverage in the article and my own search didn't turn up anything. The most notable thing was his high score, but at best that's WP:BLP1E. I also found some tournament results and passing mentions but those don't show that WP:GNG is met. He apparently was never the world champion (excluding his youth title), so I'm not seeing WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with @Papaursa . Sammartinlai (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hubbard (entrepreneur)

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

Declined speedy. I don't think this individual passes wp:GNG; the article is heavily referenced (something that to me smacks of desparation0; however most of these are actually about his alcohol business. There is nothing of any substance about the man. TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. He's been interviewed by a bunch of mainstream news outlets, including CNN and the Washington Post, among others. We're talking major feature stories about the business, some of which are included in the "References" section. If more need to be included, then fine, but I'm not sure why feature stories don't qualify as "passing the test." Feature stories don't come around often! Plus, he's a senior executive at a multimillion-dollar nonprofit organization, whereby he's frequently quoted by news outlets too. The page should stay -- what's the harm in keeping it? There are plenty of other less notable people who have Wikipedia pages. That's indisputable. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Doctorstrange617 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the many articles on non-notable businesspeople Wikipedia is plagued with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Younes Asakere

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

It's an orphan, it's poorly translated, and it doesn't meet WP:NOTE. I cleaned it up, but there's only so much I can do. Let's nuke it. Cramero (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a very sad story, falls under news or blp1e. Szzuk (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Photomatix Pro

AfDs for this article:

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

Nearly 10 years after the last AfD, this is still in a bad shape. I see one review of this software: [23] but I don't think a single review is sufficient for estabilishing notability. Can anyone find anything more? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The coverage raised in the past afd was, apart from the 1 review mentioned above, all incidental mentions. One review is on its own insufficient to establish notability, and a search turned up no additional significant coverage of this product.Dialectric (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blogs and Wikipedia are clearly not reliable sources. Sandstein 12:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Saeed Hareb

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

This was rejected at AfC 3 times [24] and according to another reviewer the title has been deleted 5 times. The creator moved this to mainspace regardless. Sourced to the subject's own website, not notable Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see many passing mentions of the subject, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that would demonstrate that he meets the WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article about yasser Hareb who is a notable author and a well known one, please find below many reliable sources that mentions his achievements and talked about him

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Yasser-Saeed-Hareb https://gulfnews.com/culture/books/to-a-mentor-and-a-friend-1.901408 http://paulocoelhoblog.com/2011/09/10/the-desert-editar/ https://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/yasser-hareb http://www.alwasatnews.com/writers/writer-18868.html http://www.alsharq.net.sa/author/yasser-harb https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B1_%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8

Yasser Saeed Hareb, the Foundation's Vice President for Culture. https://gulfnews.com/news/uae/general/strategic-alliance-for-arab-journalism-awards-1.450535

Non english resources https://www.7srey.com/yasser-saeed-hareb-quotes/ https://aliqtisadi.com/%D8%B4%D8%AE%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8/ https://www.albayan.ae/1.2730174--Salmabadrmaged (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun (mythology)

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

Seems to be mostly WP:SYNTHESIS with the remaining information requiring a complete rewrite, although I believe it to be true, so delete per WP:TNT. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half of this article is a loose collection of myths about sun gods passing through the underworld (mixed in with some material about butterfly symbolism as a cultural universal), and the other half comes from an essay about the novel The Plumed Serpent and its author's personal spin on Aztec religion (based on a book he read that was published in 1900). A couple quick searches reveal that Aztec cosmology probably did include a black sun (or dark sun, or night sun), but some TNT is definitely called for here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The nomination is a bit confusing, which may possibly explain why there was no discussion. It's not clear what the nominator wants to happen. In any case, after three weeks, there's effectively no discussion, so closing this. If somebody wants to bring it back to AfD, no prejudice against renomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASTERIG

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

Reason

I have moved the article ASTERIG back to draft space as Draft:ASTERIG. At present it does not appear to satisfy general notability guidelines because it does not include references to independent reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear user:Robert McClenon

on my user page, you wrote you doubt the reliability for the used sources. Just to name 2 of them

Assessment Tool to Measure and Evaluate the Risk Potential of Gambling Products – ASTERIG. In: The Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, Vol. 7, 2013, No 1.

Assessment Tool to Measure and Evaluate the Risk Potential of Gambling Products, ASTERIG: A Global Validation. In: Gaming Law Review and Economics. Volume 17, 2013, Issue 9, pp. 635–642.

From my pov, both look very much reliable.

I consider myself a well experienced Wikipedian, who doesn't need the oversight of an AFC process. When I created the article yesterday, this time I choose to use the AFC. You can even see in the article's history, I accidentally deleted the AFC tag, but reinstated it. If we wanna have a due diligence on the article, I will put this article back into namespace and then apply for an AFD. Then we will get a proper peer review to uphold the quality of Wikipedia.

Regards,
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be helpful, if someone from the WikiProject Gambling will have a look into this issue:
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear user:2005,

I recogniced your recent change to the ASTERIK article. As far as I can see, a lot of your edit's within Wikipedia are to gambling related topics. I would be pleased for your pov in this deletion discussion.

Regards,
Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of this AFD. However, one participant has suggested that the experts in WikiProject:Gamblimg might be able to help; but has made a notification which they are unlikely to see. I have therefore posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gambling#ASTERIG, inviting contributions. Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Marchman

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

The sources for this article are affiliated and not independent. I cannot find any sources in the first four pages of Google hits that are about him, only PR bios on a couple of websites he writes for. Most of the edits appear to be SPAs. Guy (Help!) 17:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable journalist, perhaps WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Couldn't find any trusted sources for him. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices with LTE

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mostly original research and no mention of why devices with this LTE accreditation are list worthy. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember the same lists were made for 4G and 5G devices (or some other standard) and inevitably deleted once those technologies reached normal market mass. Precedent shows this will end up as LISTCRUFT in the near future. Nate • (chatter) 20:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An absurdly large number of devices support, or will support, LTE, so this is a pointless list. Not to mention that the vast majority of the entries here are unsourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McGonagle

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Former child actor with a selection of minor roles in the 2000s. The only attribution is to IMDb and an internet search finds hardly anything about him. CallyMc (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage to be found for this subject, failing WP:GNG. Now analyzing his roles, they are: sporadic recurring appereances in Emmerdale, guest roles in Doctors, The Royal, The Street (though this one is intended to be an episodic anthology, still not enough notable) and Shameless. Nothing of significant roles this actor needs to pass WP:NACTOR. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce insurance

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

All the references appear to be advertorials for the Safeguard Guaranty Corporation's now-defunct "Wedlock" product (which is marketing shine for an investment product). One reference to a Chinese company which offers the opposite product (paying out for marriages that don't end in divorce). I tried to edit this and would have ended up with a one-sentence article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct products have a big hill to climb to show notability. This one doesn't get up that hill. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spyder (comics)

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

Character is not notable. Appears 11 times according to Marvel Wikia and is linked by two articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Lila Cheney. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both Gosamyr and Lila Cheney (the two articles that link this one) provide sufficient context for the character. Anyone knowledgeable enough about Marvel comics to search for this character will be able to locate the information without a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argento Surfer. There does not appear to be enough information for a merge in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not the required sourcing for it's own article. I suggest a redirect to Gosamyr, but suspect that article will also end up merged into New Mutants, or similar.--Killer Moff (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Parker

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

GNG fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, gidonb (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 19:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Independent Film Awards

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

Non notable paid-for film festival that does not have a panel of judges and says on its home page "You need credibility. We've got awards. If you do an amazing job making your film, we will give you awards for it. You get to include your credentials on your resume and promotional materials. Groovy, right?" This is enough to delete without going much further. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That statement on their website is a big "ouch" MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Strictly speaking, it's the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about it in media, rather than the presence or absence of a panel of judges per se, that measures the notability or non-notability of a film award — but this doesn't have reliable source coverage about it in media either. And yes, that homepage statement is painful — and goes some distance toward showing why this doesn't have reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True, that was just going to be an additional comment and I was going to add the fact that the sources are lacking but when I found that horrible statement I was so gobsmacked that I just sort of stopped there...Dom from Paris (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a case of WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the Hungry

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

Subject appears not to be notable. No independent source is cited, and I've failed to find anything acceptable. Maproom (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Source searches under "LESEA Global Feed the Hungry" provide coverage in GBooks and Gnews. See below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete SekChek Classic only.. No consensus about SekChek Local. People intend to work on it. Sandstein 12:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SekChek Classic

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

SekChek Local: I am also nominating the following related pages because... both articles might appear to be WP:G4-able, based on the 2009 AfD.; SekChek Local (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)); Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The main article about this software was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SekChek. That was in 2009. If the SekChek article were to be recreated, then this article along with SekChek Local could be redirected there. In 2018 it still appears the 2009 outcome was prescient: aside from the company's own website, the only significant internet footprint of the product and the company appear to be press releases. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If to be kept I assume we would all choose a merge not both unless further information comes to light. I have seen passing mentions from Deloitte(now found that is not independent) and others that look authoritative. I have found [this article] which at first glance looks good. From the earlier AfD we have a trade mention and a passing network world trade mention. At this moment I am leaning towards some form of merge following my brief scan. As against that these may have been an attempt to bypass AfD ... albeit perhaps good faith from a product angle rather than corporate angle ... ?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I note that on the SekChek website there is a 20 March 2018 notice that reads "20 March 2018 - NOTICE OF SEKCHEK’S CLOSURE ON 31 MAY 2018: We regret to advise you that after more than 20 years in business, SekChek IPS will cease operations on 31 May 2018." If this AFD discussion moves towards an informal re-discussion of the 2009 deletion - and it can - that the company appears to be defunct and is no longer able to support its products is not a reason for deletion. The question to be answered would then appear to me be: "looking at this in 2018, does the now defunct company SekChek meet WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and so on? The existence of articles SekChek Classic and SekChek Local would appear to me contingent on an answer to that question. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we have some reasonable agreement on the notabilty of SekChek in general I think I may be willing to do a fairly bold rewrite on SekChek Local with the intention of moving it without redirect to SekChek leaving SekChek Classic to be deleted. I would avoid a Merge as that leaves attribution issues and the redirects hanging about. I'd want some good faith about the notability to avoid such effort being immediately deleted. One bad point is I can find no other party have used to the closure press release! I dont want to see the original article as that again can cause attribution issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination both promotional texts, created by a special-purpose unit. Perhaps hard work was involved but whatever. -The Gnome (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As suggested before I have decided I will begin a somewhat very brutal rewrite of the Sekchek local article, re-orientating it SekChek and using existing references.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (SekChek local only On reworked version. ; and with the intention this be moved to SekCheck without leaving a redirect) One issue at this moment is 3 of 4 original references suitable for notability have link rotted and seem insufficiently specified to locate the original reference. Rizal et. al. Jurnal Informatika, Vol. 14, No. 2, Desember 2014 and A (strictly confidential?) Cairngorm national park paper. I'm currently working the article (slowly) and both 21 October 2018 and current need to be viewed as someone could object to my amendments.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2013 New Zealand primetime television schedule

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOT this article is an indepth program listing (including instances of movies) in each primetime timeslot most likely copies from EPG's at the time of construction. Wikipedia itself isn't an electronic program guide nor a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Article is poorly sourced, the sourcing provided are official broadcaster websites EPG's, none of which hold any historic content. Also notability has not been established, the article is almost entirely contributed by IP's, likely the same individual user. While WP:NOTDIR does mention that historic program listings may be accepted, let me also emphasise the word may as it offers no clear precedent that these types of articles are automatically encyclopedic and worth keeping based on AfD's from the U.S. based lists, in case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. This article was nominated in 2013, but closed prematurely using arguments with little basis at all to actual policy. I am also nominating the following related page because it a TV listing for a different year, and is more incomplete and unsourced than the one leading this AfD:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - nothing remotely notable about this list NealeFamily (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TV schedules don't belong on Wikipedia. They are not encyclopedic information. SJK (talk) 09:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Margaret Fish. Anchor added. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Fish

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

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG ^talk 17:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia fluff about her family and the standard longevity advice. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her, which demonstrates how the article fails WP:NOPAGE. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of British supercentenarians, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British supercentenarians#Margaret Fish (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. The nominator notes, "We have tables for this." I recommend that instead of deleting the article, we redirect the article to the person's place in the table by adding an anchor to the person's entry. It is useful to preserve the history so that any interested editors can merge content to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies if they think the person deserves more than a mention in the table.
Cunard (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Born, got married, had kids, got old, died. Nothing that isn't easily handled on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahroz Education System School and College

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

This educational establishment was founded in August 2018 and the username of the creator of the article just happens to be identical to the principal and founder of the college. The article has no references and I doubt the college has had time to become notable yet. There is another article Shahroz Education System Saroke created by the same single purpose editor that I would also like to propose for deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am of the opinion that User:Cwmhiraeth adequately describes why this article should be deleted, and agree with him. To contribute and formalize the nomination I want to specifically reference WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:GNG

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 18:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 12:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shahroz Education System Saroke

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

This educational establishment is non-notable and brings up nothing useful when used as a search term, with or without "Saroke". The username of the creator of the article just happens to be identical to the principal and founder of the college. The article has no references. There is another article Shahroz Education System School and College created by the same single purpose editor that I have also proposed for deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 12:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi quda'ah

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

Unsourced and non-notable village. It fails WP:GNG and there is no evidence of notability anywhere. For a start, there are zero hits on Google Maps and it shows that this is a non-existent place as well. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks more like a WP:DEL7 case so far than a WP:DEL8 case. The article was created by an IP-editor back in 2005. I had a look at their global contributions, especially their contributions on Arabic Wikipedia, but that gave me no further clue to the location. "35 km north-east of Ras Al Khaimah" brings us into Oman. I had a look at the maps in the area of Sha'am, but nothing is named "Wadi Quda'ah", AFAICT. Allow me to pin Alexandermcnabb. Sam Sailor 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: If this place cannot be found anywhere, then this is probably a hoax and by far it could be a hoax that has been extant the longest. 13 years and 7 months if we count tomorrow. It could make the top of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if this is indeed a hoax and I have a strong suspicion that it is as it is nowhere on Google Maps. This for verification that it is not a place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sam Sailor: You were looking in the wrong spot for a place of a slightly different name. SportingFlyer talk 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about this subject other than mirror sites replicating our article. Even if the village exists, Sam Sailor is correct - 35 km North East of Ras Al Khaimah would be in Oman, so at least one of the assertions in this single sentence article is demonstrably false. Ditch it. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Wadi Qada'a. The place certainly exists but with a slightly different transliteration and is not a hoax full of caracals and rock climbing opportunities, with co-ordinates listed here: [25] and other coverage [26] [27] [28] [29]. Also a mention here: [30] I think the "about 35 kilometers northeast" is a bit misleading as this is likely the distance by car (possibly from 14 years ago) and not as the crow flies. I'm also not sure if it's a valley or a settlement from English language sources, but I think it passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT either way. SportingFlyer talk 12:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SportingFlyer, I am actually looking deeper now, and it seems to exist. Here is what I have found so far looking for transliteration alternatives:

Lancaster, W.; Lancaster, F. (2011). Honour Is in Contentment: Life Before Oil in Ras Al-Khaimah (UAE) and Some Neighbouring Regions. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients. De Gruyter. p. 246. ISBN 978-3-11-022340-8. Retrieved 21 October 2018. In Wadi Quda', a Habus recalled, "We had a few date trees on our higher fields. Before, we used to buy our dates or work for them in places on the sayh like ...

Tribulus, The Journal of the Emirates Natural History Group, vol. 3, no. 1, April 1993, p. 23: "...been confused with the Ethiopian Hedgehog. (Pargechinus aethiopicus dorsalis), of which two reports of road casualties were received from the Wadi Quda'a ..."

Tribulus, The Journal of the Emirates Natural History Group, vol. 3, no. 2, October 1993, p. 23: "...one dead in the Wadi Quda'a on March 12th ..."

Sam Sailor 12:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it is a genuine village. scope_creep (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sam Thanks for the ping. It may well be a thing, but can we stand up GNG on a dead hedgehog? It's likely an area rather than 'a legally recognised settlement' and it's clearly not notable other than for our two dimensional friends... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a "wadi," which is about the only Arabic word I definitively know the meaning of - and as far as dry valleys go, this one is populated, is verifiable beyond mere statistics, and has been covered in at least two languages other than Arabic. I took a small crack at improving the article, but more can be done, and there's a lot more here than just a dead hedgehog. Passes WP:GEOFEAT. SportingFlyer talk 22:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: I can understand you not knowing what algebra means (who does), but you don't know about alcohol? SpinningSpark 22:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't drink, nor was I referring to etymologies. SportingFlyer talk 23:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From link [6] above "Residents of Wadi Qada’a were offered the opportunity to pave a road into their wadi. Elders were opposed, wanting to keep their wadi comparatively remote." So not only is it populated, but it has political leadership. Whether any of that has legal recognition, I don't know, but it puts it well on the way to a GEOLAND pass. I would have thought that all named, substantial wadis in the UAE were pretty much notable, and this one is verifiably part of established hiking trails. Let's do our bit to protect the hedgehogs. SpinningSpark 22:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Spinningspark. /Julle (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer and Spinningspark. SJK (talk) 09:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Playback

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I actually started this article, but I agree with the nom that it's just become a listcruft - plus, no refs to speak of. Bob talk 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and fails WP:GNG, plus also appears to be WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Author has expressed support to delete. Ajf773 (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DenisDaily

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

Unsourced and odd reading article (including irrelevance like height or a list of his pets) about a non notable youtubeer Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why the BLPPROD was removed despite not actually having any sources, but here we are. Regardless, definitely fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The {{prod blp}} was removed by article creator in Special:Diff/867661620/867725392 and could have been added again, as the article is still unsourced. But, here we are, and that is not too bad since the article is a recreation after it was deleted under A7 on October 21st. Searches for sources returned nothing useful; subject fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 18:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would give the user a chance to make a case, AGF and all. As they have not done so I suspect this may be that (as I asked them on their talk page) this article is actually a joke. I think we can speedily delete this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Just to make sure, I did not imply you had done anything wrong here. On the contrary it can be a benefit to take an article to AFD and have it deleted per consensus. In case it is recreated in a substantially identical version, it can be speedy deleted under WP:G4. Best, Sam Sailor 20:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Posting Minecraft roleplaying videos on YouTube is not "inherently" notable enough to entitle a person to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but there's no reliable sourcing present here to get him over WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG --wooden superman 15:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only do to lack of reliable sources and apparent advertisement to Amazon.Trillfendi (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the very definition of WP:NOTWEBHOST and has gotten way too out of control. At this point if a film doesn't come out on any video format, it's an anomaly. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:NOTCATALOG. Trivialist (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mondo Macabro releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obviously WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dragon Dynasty releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obviously WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

La-La Land Records

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

WP:NOTCATALOG --wooden superman 14:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like advertising to me. No independent sourcing. The Banner talk 14:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage; fails WP:NCORP. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scream Factory releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Obviously WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue Underground releases

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. All links are to the company's own website. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 13:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete'. Obviously WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rope. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic rope

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

Please see Rope Roxy, the Prod. wooF 13:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you going to add a meaningful deletion rationale, detailing why you believe this article should be deleted? --Michig (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's not possible to add a meaningful deletion rationale. This is clearly a notable topic. Aside from the firefighter-associated refs already in the article, which are the tip of a rather large iceberg in the firefighting literature as a GBooks search will show, it turns out that synthetic rope is widely studied for any number of reasons. Take a look at this GScholar search to see what I mean. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a categorized {{R to anchor}} to Rope#Synthetic rope, not that there is a lot to merge, but there is no need to presently have a separate article based on material type alone. The article title is, however, a valid search term. Sam Sailor 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested above. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I'm not opposed to a merge, but I'm not seeing what could be merged: we can't create a new section in another article for one, two or even three short sentences, and haphazardly throwing them into any old spot in any old article is how we get messes like [insert random target of a bunch of arbitrary mergers here]. And FWIW, even though I really don't like the amount of red-tape certain "keepist" editors have been gradually building up to get in the way of AFD nominators, I think opening this up front rather than going to ANI (or perhaps consulting with me beforehand given that it was me that attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page) would have been the better option from the beginning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, nobody has suggested creating a new section in the target. Sam Sailor 21:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: In my experience AFDs that end in "merge" results normally lead to either redirecting with the promise of merging the content at some later date or a clumsy merging that involves creating a section in the target article named for the merged article with the content of the merged article just stuffed in that section. Proper merging requires careful consideration; it shouldn't be difficult with an article of this length, but I don't see it having been done here yet.

Plus, you literally said just above here that it should be merged to an as-yet non-existent section entitled "Synthetic rope" in the Rope article, so ... well, I don't have a problem with you suggesting something I personally don't like, and honestly even if it happens I won't lose any sleep over it, but then pinging me to say that no one suggested what you suggested is ... well, you have to see the humour in that.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, right, no, you keep misunderstanding the difference between an {{R to anchor}} (anchor already created in Special:Diff/867539784/867732477) and an {{R to section}}, which I have never suggested. Sam Sailor 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, I see it now. You misunderstood what I said as being specifically targeted at what you wrote, and pinged me to tell me that what you thought I wrote was wrong, and then when I point out that what you wrote (which, full disclosure, I hadn't even noticed until after you pinged me) is pretty damn close to what you thought I was accusing you of you again tell me I'm wrong. Anyway, I don't care. Don't ping me again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I suppose, as contributing to a general improvement of the rope article but I don't feel strongly against merely a redirect (or even keep). There is nothing wrong with the article and the topic passes WP:GNG although editorially the contents could sensibly be handled as part of the broader topic. Even the nomination seems to be hinting at redirect although the earlier PROD had a contrary implication. Sometimes a redirect is accompanied by deleting the previous article content. This would not be appropriate here. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Barely a dictionary definition. A standalone article on the topic could exist one day; this is not that article. Fish+Karate 10:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Rope is rope, made from Synthetic, man made or natural fibre. Synthetic fibre rope is not a topic independent of Rope. - Also, see ANI for background. -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Synthetic cannabinoids -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Cannabinoids are cannabinoids...
- Synthetic diamond -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Diamonds are diamonds...
- Synthetic fiber -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Fiber is fiber...
- Synthetic rubber -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Rubber is rubber...
- The point is that there are plenty of sources, as noted above, that treat synthetic rope as a distinct topic from rope itself. It's not our place to argue with the sources on the basis of some ad hoc synthetic reasoning because we have some unfounded opinion, or even a founded opinion, that "a standalone article on this topic should never exist." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t be silly. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being silly. Look at the GScholar search I linked to. Synthetic rope is covered in many sources as a thing in itself rather than as a variety of generic rope. The fact that you don't see it as independently important is probably due to the fact that you're not a firefighter or someone else for whom the distinction is vital. Really, it's just like diamonds. There's no chemical difference between synthetic diamonds and natural diamonds, so by your reasoning why should we have separate articles? The answer is, of course, that the sources say we should. Just like they say we should have a separate article on synthetic rope. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t, I’m busy writing a red car article, then a blue car article, and following up with yellow white green and black articles. Roxy, the Prod. wooF 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rope. Unnecessary for now, and there isn't enough to warrant a separate article, I think develop first in the rope article until there is enough material to split. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "Rope". The guideline WP:NOPAGE states "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." The article, such as it is, has two sentences that could be copy-pasted into the "Rope" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Consensus seems to be going in that way per WP:TOOSOON. That way it does get deleted from mainspace per nominator and delete supporters but also gives it time to build itself when it gets to air. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100 Day Renovation

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

Looks like a non-notable tv show. Refs fail sigcov and/or are affiliated/press releases. A search can't find anything better. Might just be TOOSOON, but in any case isn't notable as of yet. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 12:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon not actually has run yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Can be re-assessed for notability once (if?) it airs. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As it will air in the not so distant future at which time their probably will be a lot more sources to cover the issues raised by the nom. JC7V-talk 21:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also suggest besides my suggestion to draftify this I'm also open to turning 100 Days Renovation into a redirect (delete and redirect) to 100 Day Bach until the series starts airing. There should be more and more sources by then since this is a notable series. WP:ATD JC7V (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We notoriously disagree about list notability issues. There's no policy basis for me to find a clear consensus in one way or the other here. Sandstein 07:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest towns in England without a railway station

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

Looks like a rather random list / fancruft The Banner talk 11:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge There seem to be quite a few lists of railway stations in Britain (eg List of closed railway stations in Britain, which is actually a list of 7 lists). On the other hand, most of the dates of when railway stations closed in this article seem to fall within the period of the Beeching Cuts - but the section on Closures by Year in that article shows only the mileage per year, not the major towns affected. I would suggest merging this article with Beeching Cuts - and also making the table sortable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made the table sortable; this certainly does not seem to rise (sink?) to the level of fancruft, as is claimed by the nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, your edit just did not add a thing to the notability of the list. The Banner talk 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of facts with made up criteria, you could create thousands of such negative articles (List of Towns in England without a Bowling Alley/Green Doors/Airports/Garden Centres) but hardly encyclopedic. Also contains another random "largest" criteria which makes it even dafter. MilborneOne (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and MilborneOne. Also WP:SYNTH. --wooden superman 16:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rail network is a major public concern, so of course large towns with no rail connection makes a notable list. There are numerous books listing railway station closures in great detail [31][32][33][34]. Newspaper article discussing who has the largest town without a railway station [35]. SpinningSpark 16:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it relies on a single “source”. Or merge if some of you really believe it’s that important.Trillfendi (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British towns with no railway station which was deleted in 2012, this looks to be similar to that, just that this lists them by size, I remember reading that article in 2008, before I even edited Wikipedia and the points about it being vague and OR probably apply here to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 7#Category:British towns without a railway station. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CLN. The category is non notable and neither is the list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, where are the sources that discuss such towns as a group? inclusion criteria is also ill defined/arbitrary. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comment by Redrose64 in the previous discussion: this list does not define the association of town and station (is this judging by municipal boundaries or other lowest-level-local-government boundaries, or something else), so it's inherently unverifiable. Meanwhile, what does "without" mean? Gosport, the most populous entry on the list, has a railway station. And back to the previous issue, the second item on the list, Dudley, has two stations "within the town of Dudley" but a mile or more outside the centre (uh, it has 80,000 residents; is any concept of the town restricted to a circle with a one-mile radius?), so again, what's meant here? No opinion on the fundamental propriety of having a list of this sort, but either it's an inappropriate topic that needs to be deleted because it's inappropriate, or it's an appropriate topic that needs to be deleted on WP:TNT grounds. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Gosport railway station is disused, so it might be helpful if it made a distinction between towns that never had one and those that once did. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add details -- This article has difficulties, but I think they would be solved by adding a further column dealing with what stations are nearby and how far they are. I will be voting against keeping the category, but think we should have a list. One of the difficulties in metropolitan areas is defining the extent of a town, because there are no distinct permanent boundaries. Dudley Borough includes also Halesowen and Stourbridge, which are historic market towns, but also Brierley Hill and Kingswinford, which are not, though Brierley Hill has (or recently had) a market. The three stations in the borough are within the pre-1974 borough of Stourbridge. However Dudley Port and Sandwell and Dudley stations are supposed to serve the town, though outside the borough boundary. Bromsgrove has a station, but it is very remote from the town centre, within an area added to the town in perhaps 1930s, and a turnpike had to be built to link the station to the town. Thus in one sense Bromsgrove is a town without a station. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add details per SpiingSpark and Peterkingiron. This is a very notable topic, there are parts of the inclusion criteria that are poorly defined but these can be resolved by editing without the need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the topic is certainly notable, and many towns claim to be the largest without a station, and it's a repeated topic for local campaigners. The article though is pretty lousy - it gives a list, then says "here's a list of smaller places not included", then lists several places which are bigger than some of those on the list. The inclusion criteria are woolly at best - after all, many places are served by parkway stations outside the town itself. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fancruft? By railway fans? When the defining characteristic here is that they don't have a railway?

This list is more about town planning / transport issues in the current UK, which owing to historical policy in the 1960s (see Beeching Axe) are today a very current political issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there was a report on this topic a few years back (I can't remember who by now) if that can be found it could be a useful reference. G-13114 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One more source to look at "Which parts of Great Britain are furthest from a train station?" to establish notability. Ok, CityMetric is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, but it is part of the New Statesman, so still a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. Even if it wasn't, the author, Alasdair Rae, would get a pass per WP:SPS as a professor at Sheffield University who is previously published in the field. The last word, I think, needs to go to a reply to a "Notes & Queries" piece in The Guardian, "Which is the largest town in Britain that cannot be reached by train? LONDON, probably, if you're travelling by Virgin." SpinningSpark 14:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact I am waiting for a List of largest towns in England where nobody speaks Dutch, as the Netherlands are an important trade partner. The Banner talk 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these two criteria (no railway station; town size) do not seem to be closely connected. This is an arbitrary list and cannot, in itself, be notable. Also, the difficulty in defining what is a 'town' is in my view fatal to the list definition by itself. Naturenet | Talk 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean they aren't connected other than in the various reliable sources that connect them? Also "difficult" != "impossible", all that not that it actually difficult - you just look at what definitions the various reliable sources use and use that. If they differ then you discuss the differences as happens in hundreds of other lists on Wikipedia. There is a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT in this discussion (generally, not exclusively from your comment). Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's rare that I'd disagree with you but I might just pick this one up. I am not asserting that there are no sources for the sizes of towns, nor presence of railway stations. Clearly those exist. My suggestion is that the specific connection between the size of the town and the lack of a railway station is not, in itself, obvious or indeed notable. I don't see any reference on the list page or in a casual search which would could support that. Naturenet | Talk 12:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If town cannot be precisely defined and that is a "fatal flaw" for a list then the hundreds of pages in All pages with titles beginning with List of towns have a big problem. To say nothing of the thousands of articles that claim to be about a specific town. I suggest that it's more the case that there is a fatal flaw in your rationale. SpinningSpark 00:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually you're not wrong, and I should have been more specific. It's the 'largest' part of the criterion that bothers me, and I speak as a veteran of the List of the largest villages in England battles. In England there is no formal distinction between a town and a village, or any other settlement (except arguably a city), and a definitive list of towns or villages (as distinct from administrative localities) could never exist. That doesn't mean you can't usefully list them out, but it does mean that when you want to fully define the extent of that list (for example by seeking 'the largest') you run into problems. The edge cases which are relevant to this discussion will be towns that form part of a larger conurbations, to take the two top examples on the current page: Gosport is arguably part of Portsmouth, and Portsmouth Harbour Station is about 500m from Gosport town; Dudley is arguably a part of Birmingham, and Dudley Street station is 2.5km from Dudley town centre. My argument is not that these items should or should not be on the list, but that these arbitrary distinctions are not important enough to write a list about. Naturenet | Talk 12:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't actually relevant at all to this list whether the settlement is a town, village or city - what matters is its population. So fortunately this means that any problems of definition of "town" are irrelevant. Regarding what settlements are suburbs and which aren't, again the article can and should just use whatever criteria is used in reliable sources (examples of which have been presented elsewhere in this discussion; yet for some reason the "no reliable sources" arguments keep on coming). Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - That sounds fair enough, but it would be helpful if you could point out these sources that connect the size of the town and the lack of a railway station. Also, if it doesn't matter what sort of settlement is described then why mention it in the list title? If it does not actually mean 'town' it should not say so. Naturenet | Talk 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. Note there exists no source given supporting the notability of the topic, i.e. there is no discussion cited/known that even mentions the topic of towns, much less largest towns, which do not have a railway station. Per wp:SALAT, about standalone list topics, you have to be able to defend the notability of the topic. Note also in this discussion that there is sentiment/consensus that a corresponding category is invalid. One way to defend a list would be to have it correspond to a valid category and cite wp:CLNT about correspondence of categories, lists, and navigation templates. I have used that argument myself. I am an "inclusionist" and a creator of many big list-articles, but I think this one should be deleted forthwith. --Doncram (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is this page a political statement? I think that it is. To the world it is presenting Wikipedia editors as having the collective opinion that all towns should have train service. I don't want to be part of that. --Doncram (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand how you can read the article and come to the conclusion that this is doing any of those things (making a political statement, Wikipedia editors having a collective opinion, and/or expressing an opinion that all towns should have a train service). This is simply a factual list that implies no more opinion than does List of largest hotels or List of films considered the worst. Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or List of largest towns in England where nobody speaks Dutch. The Banner talk 23:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference is you can't find sources for that. It's a false example. SpinningSpark 23:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you want a genuine language-related example, Municipalities with language facilities does not imply Wikipeida believes all municipalities should offer services in both French and Dutch. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it is bogus because it is, on the face of it, a ridiculous list-article topic. Why not List of polticians denying being child-molesters etc., i.e. obviously slanted constructions, non-encyclopedic. Obviously some Wikipedia editors find it sad that places lack a railway station, and are violating Wikipedia principles (wp:OR) to manufacture something. Ergo, if this is in mainspace, it seems that Wikipedia editors endorse this. This is embarrassing; I don't want to be part of that. --Doncram (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        There are obvious NPOV and BLP reasons why that example does not exist. Geographic and demographic lists do not have the same issues. List of highest towns by country does not imply that lower-lying towns are in some way inferior, nor does a lack of a train station. There is a reason why all your examples are red, and all the counter examples are blue. SpinningSpark 09:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that cited references from what appear to be reliable sources for this subject have been provided above. This substanitates notability. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I take no position in the AfD, but note that a similar list for the United States was kept in 2016: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major cities in U.S. lacking Amtrak service. That article does continue to have challenges, but it's not unsalvageable. Mackensen (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this was the relevant report I mentioned earlier Connecting Communities: Expanding Access to the Rail Network. I found it has a wikipedia article. It might be relevant as a source. G-13114 (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of startups in Pakistan

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

Listcruft . Subject fails GNG. Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory. majority of startups listed are not notable by WP standards. Saqib (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:GNG. I'm pretty sure this article has been deleted before under a different title. Ajf773 (talk) 12:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the startups don't even have articles. Even if this list had useful information in it (which it doesn't), the topic isn't notable. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be the only “list of startups” article in all of the database anyway.Trillfendi (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, listing of non-notable entities which is where this will perpetually stay. This doesn't seem suitable even for a category. Gotitbro (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MAHSA University

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

Possible WP:COI which they focused closely on the subject, plus it does not meet the WP:GNG for undisclosed reason. Sheldybett (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a college. Colleges are notable. And this one fails GNG for undisclosed reasons? That's a new one! 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a couple of Malaysia and UK newspaper references and noted their association with Northumbria University. This institution is also specifically mentioned as an example in a June 2018 reported speech by the Malaysian Health Minister: [36]. Enough for WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now this article on a university has multiple independent references so there is no reason for deletion and as above it seems to be a significant international organisation, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. --Doncram (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep universities, even when AfDed for an undisclosed reason! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pedro Francisco Bono Institute. Were it not for the question about meeting WP:V, I would have closed this as merge. As it is, the history is still intact so if anybody wants to merge material, they can do so, but they'll need to ensure that anything merged meets WP:V. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Bonó

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pedro Francisco Bono Institute, after removing primary sources. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pedro Francisco Bono Institute, which it mentions. At its own, this article fails WP:GNG to be a standalone article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - after looking for English sources, gave up. But, an article isn't on the Spanish Wikipedia, for what it's worth. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to above target. content does not appear to be verifiable. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" makes little sense. "All TV and radio programming is notable" is certainly not our policy. Sandstein 12:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Journey of the Magna Carta King

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cannot see how this meets criteria of WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why has a programme that provided a new viewpoint on the history of king john is not notable is questionable - he is devisive character from British history and the programme discuss these, as well as a archaeological survey that was described as game changing. One reference was rejected when the page was created as it was an article from the Daily Mail that was an interview with the presenters. Howver this is a programme that was on BBC One one of the UKs biggest channels. Is this less notable than programmes like Long Shadow (TV series) (which is a also poorly written) which is on wikipedia? This programme was also quoted in Reification and Representation: Architecture in the Politico-Media-Complex By Graham Cairns ISBN:9781138927414 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=axBqDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT147). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition the radio times is an independent article as it has not been part of the BBC since 2011. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a programme that provided a new viewpoint on the history of King John"... a claim not made in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a claim that was made in the Daily mail article (Is 'tyrannical' King John a victim of the worst smear campaign in history? Letters show Magna Carta monarch was enthusiastic, energetic and optimistic) which cannot be used in the article so the claim cannot be stated. However The radio Times is an independent reference and has been used by many television programme pages for notability. Also Wikipedia Notability on Media states "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. "Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Radio Times is a listings publication; it serves to confirm details such as cast or director of a program, but in no way does it confrm notability. In the way that being listed in an A-Z street guide does not make a street notable. And as for what the Daily Mail writes.... TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia notability on media does quote that all TV and radio programming is notable. Also was part of 800 anniversary of Magna Carta celebrations as per the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will be a long post, because admins need to see this. Because of poor facts on this article, I need to address one thing that is also a possible key as to why this show has not gotten some significant coverage. According to this article, it says it is a BBC One show...but it is not. It actually was a BBC Four one (which also has almost 20 times less audience share per their respective articles), that aired on February 7 per https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052hrdd (look at broadcast section in the bottom). It actually never aired on BBC One but on BBC News (TV Channel) as per https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0517cc5 (it aired on January 30 but only as a limited broadcast in some parts of UK, but not national wide) and also confirmed by the own Chruch Times article in the article itself. This subject completely fails WP:GNG. References in the article go as listed: premiere date TV guide, primary promo link, summary of the show, primary, primary source. Nothing here satisfies WP:SECONDARY or WP:SIGCOV. Daily Mail source found is not a reliable source per Wiki guidelines, so that is out of discussion as well here. WP:TVSERIES also says that the absence or presence of sources is more important than the geographic range of the said program (so the claim that all TV shows are automatically notable made by the IP user is also invalid). Considering I was not able to find anything on my WP:BEFORE search, nothing there as well. Overall, just not notable. And regarding Davidstewartharvey's post, per WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact it covers a very notable thing does not pass it notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discount both "keep"s because they do not do the one thing that could save this article: identify substantial coverage in reliable sources, or discuss the contested quality of the existing sources. Sandstein 12:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Health Clubs

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

Fails WP:NCORP because sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH, basically every single one is a routine announcement of store acquisitions, openings or closings. No in-depth independent sources. PROD contested by author. shoy (reactions) 18:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple click on the "news" link above shows a significant number of news-worthy additions and coverage, well enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the avenues that I tried to find additional sources before my initial PROD. The problem is that all of those "articles" are either press releases or barely-recycled press releases from industry websites or local newspapers about store openings, closings, purchases, etc. which explicitly run afoul of WP:CORPDEPTH. It is the very definition of "trivial coverage". shoy (reactions) 20:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was informed that pursuant to WP:COI and WP:PAID, I am required to disclose my affiliation with Genesis Health Clubs. I am a former Front Desk Associate at the Metcalf SuperSport and Lee's Summit East locations. I was also a Cafe Manager and Delivery Driver with Geomeals. I was employed January 2018 to July 2018. Prior to that, I was a member from January 2017 to July 2018, and was featured as a weight loss success story around January 2018. I was also a member with 24 Hour Fitness Independence, Missouri location in 2013, prior to the acquisition by Genesis. I currently live in Viña Del Mar, Chile and no longer have any affiliation with Genesis Health Clubs, other than remaining friends with a number of former colleagues. I have met Rodney Steven on three separate occasions, but don't know him to any degree of depth. I created this article entirely of my own volition. I was not paid, nor even asked by anybody to create this article. I created it as a labor of love, because I thought that this company should have an article, as 24 Hour Fitness and Gold's Gym do. I believe I have presented the subject matter objectively. My real name is Kenneth K. Santarelli, feel free to investigate me further if you'd like. I believe I have now done my due diligence for full disclosure, but if any additional information is wanted from me, please let me know. Whammy (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an excessively promotional article on an unremarkable chain. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routine notices, passing mentions, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Korn Ferry#Acquisitions. Content can be merged from history to whereever would be appropriate. Sandstein 12:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hay Group

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

Basically unsourced for years, this is a subsidiary of another company with a page, and could be merged or redirected to Korn Ferry if some content seems proper. Considering Hay Group no longer exists, and my search for other sources has come up largely dry, I would delete the Hay Group entry either way as it does not pass GNG. Lots of history it seems, but no third-party in-depth coverage available. Isingness (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other material could be merged to Edward N. Hay as well, which was made at the same time as Hay Group by an SPA, leading me to believe both these could have been early spam. Isingness (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Korn Ferry, they bought it, so unless it becomes an independent company it belongs in the acquisitions section of their article. Szzuk (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 11:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reuters, WSJ coverage, 4,000 employees, all indicate stand-alone notability prior to the acquisition. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korn_Ferry#Acquisitions, the acquiring company. Not independently notable; unsourced promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Galmudug. Sandstein 12:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Galmudug

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

Not notable, would suggest merge, but there is nothing useful here ^{[Username Needed]} 12:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Redirect to Galmudug. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Govvy. SpinningSpark 11:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 5 Seconds of Summer. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi or Hey Records

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

Four sources currently used in the article, two are from 5 Seconds of Summer's Tumblr, one from the label's website, and one from their facebook page. There's clearly no indication of notability here in secondary, reliable sources. Should be deleted in my opinion or redirect to one of the parent companies Universal Music Group or Capitol Records. N Ø 13:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 5 Seconds of Summer. No notability outside the band. Fails GNG. No other indications of cultural significance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct to 5 Seconds of Summer. No inherent notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Houston–Texas football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston-Texas football rivalry

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston–Texas football rivalry

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

Unnecessary content fork of the Houston and Texas football teams. Relative to other rivalries and rivalry articles, this has no trophy, fewer contests, and less rivalry-specific coverage. p b p 14:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Purplebackpack89: A prior AfD closed only six weeks ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston-Texas football rivalry. Is there a reason this is being brought back to AfD so quickly? Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as no consensus, so there's no prejudice against it being renominated. p b p 22:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but six weeks is a bit quick. And you did not link to the prior AfD, so I thought you might have been unaware. Could you go ahead and add the link in the AfD box above? Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is generally accepted per WP:RENOM, so it is slightly speedy, and Cbl62 is correct in noting the AfD hasn't been properly created (losing the reference to the previous one.) SportingFlyer talk 09:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: The reason I didn't find the previous AfD is that the article was renamed since the previous AfD. The claim that this hasn't been properly created is off. Anyway, can we not get so hung up in bureaucracy and address the fact that this is not a notable rivalry? p b p 14:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources in the article indicate that this is a rivalry.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this particular pairing of football teams is particularly notable. Otherwise, if a competition has n teams, we'd be creating (n*(n-1))/2 articles for every possible pairing of teams. "Rivalry" articles should only exist if the pairing is demonstrated to somehow be noteworthy. SJK (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nur (TV series)

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

No notability noticed in English sources, unless there is something in the native language, which I cannot access nor understand. Sometimes the AfD discussion helps toward improving the article, and I certainly hope that may be the case. Otherwise this article is to be deleted for lack of notability. 1l2l3k (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the article is currently in a poor state, it meets the notability guidelines as a TV show that aired on a major national TV network. With that said, perhaps more sources exist in Malay. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub. As stated above, it aired on a major, national TV network in Malaysia, and is likely inherently notable (WP:TVSERIES). I think generally nominating an article in hopes that it is expanded is an inappropriate use of AfD. Yes, it would be nice if it was improved, but stubs should not be deleted just for being stubs. matt91486 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A nationally broadcast TV show is likely to be notable per WP:NTV. Furthermore, the source says it had 9 million viewers for its premiere episode, which is nearly 30% of the population of Malaysia (if you want to understand in US terms, that's Superbowl level of TV ratings). And if you consider only the Malay population, the people the show is aimed at, it's over 55%. It has also won major Malaysian TV awards, I simply can't see how that is not notable. Note that while English sources are preferred, non-English sources are acceptable per WP:NONENG. Hzh (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Very weak consensus, so consider this akin to a PROD: WP:REFUND applies. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Kashat

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

Non-notable singer, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Her career has primarily been as a backup singer/dancer, and the citation backing up claims that she has received critical acclaim and charted is not reliable. Coverage in the Detroit News is a mere mention in a routine article about the Church of Scientology opening a new location. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant, reliable coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jarko Zavi

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

WithdrawnMemorial-style page on a Canadian ceramics artist. The page states he was an outsider who did not participate in exhibitions, which rules out many of the WP:Artist inclusion criteria. The only other points for inclusion are a few minor newspaper mentions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per Zavi's notability in the context of Canadian art, see the following:

lengthy write-up in "A Fine Line: Studio Crafts in Ontario from 1930 to the Present"
"Canadian Craft and Museum Practices 1900–1950", Sandra Flood

In addition, Zavi's work has been exhibited at least once posthumously. See here: "The Gates opens next weekend with a special show" -RHM22 (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book reference is half decent and does go into some depth. if there were more sources like that it would not be a problem... but there aren't more sources as far as I can see. The last item you provided a Quinte West News article published on ISSU, which is a self-publishing platform with no credibility on WP. No idea bout the middle item, as it is just a title and author listing. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no problem assuming good faith RE: the provided Sandra Flood reference. Multiple reliable sources satisfies the GNG. EnPassant (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you AGF on the Sandra flood article, do you imagine it as a chapter-length article, or are you assuming a trivial mention of a sentence or less? Just curious.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had a look on newspapers.com and found several paragraph length mentions of his work, from the 1940s (Montreal), 1950s (Western Canada), to the 1960s and 1970s (Ottawa). The Cobourg museum, in the same town where Zavi lived for an extended period beginning circa 1946, states [37] that the National Film Board made two features on his work. Curiocurio (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles sound promising, and it's always possible that a nominator makes a mistake. Why don;t you include the newspaper.com articles in the article itself? Re the NFB claim, my search of the NFB online collection showed no feature films of his work. Other search results seem to say he might have been "featured", which could mean featured at length, or had his work included in the set of a film.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the 'feature' films by the NFB are shorts, probably around 10 minutes or so. Another website said the date for them was 1946. The Canadian Craft and Museum Practices 1900-1950 is in my city library as a reference book, and I might make the trip to see how valuable a source it is. Curiocurio (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I rewrote and expanded the article, and added four new sources. Find-a-grave isn't the greatest source, but it's pretty definitive when you can look at the dates on a headstone. I think the article looks quite a bit better now. Curiocurio (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Notability concerns have been allayed by the kind volunteer research and addition of sources by Curiocurio. Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baikalov

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

Non-notable tour operator in Russia, seems to fail WP:GNG. eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious advert. Non-reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely generic not notable tour operator. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Meily

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

No significant coverage. This fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reason given. (Incidentally, the articles about his brothers are similarly short of independent sources, though I haven't bothered to search for sources for either.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy any of WP:ARTIST and has zero references. Has significant contributions from User Dominic_meily. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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