Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 January	10 January >

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 Keep. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Janela

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

Does not appear to be a notable wrestler - editor is just copying pages from prowrestling.fandom.com - in this case https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/Joey_Janela KylieTastic (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G12. Wikia content is, unless otherwise specified, available under the CC-BY-SA license. The author of the page has not included a backlink in the form of a URL or in any way indicated that this content is copied from Wikia, so that technically makes it an unambiguous license violation and therefore falls under speedy criteria. SITH (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: it was pointed out to me earlier today that "mere lack of attribution of such works" is not enough for a speedy under WP:G12. But most of the author's other copy-paste creations have been deleted under other speedy criteria, so a speedy !vote makes sense regardless. Bakazaka (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Sadly this article is in awful condition. Subject certainly meets notability guideline. ESPN Deadspin, Wrestling Observer, Fightful, Pro Wrestling Sheet, Wrestling Observer, Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Sheet, and Wrestling Observer. Based on this sample of sources meets WP: ENTERTAINER and WP: GNG. STATic message me! 22:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons Static listed. Article certainly could use more work. Janela is enough of a notable name in pro wrestling to have an article. As the articles condition goes I think we should give it a few days and come back and check to see if any progress to the article has happened --HC⁷ 17:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep per sources listed by STATicVapor. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable even if the article is subpar.LM2000 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this 7 months ago, but I believe in the time since that has changed. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia van Cuylenburg

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT the only in-depth independent coverage I can find is this [1] which surely can't be enough? Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Only refs as of January 10 are interviews. David notMD (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like there was an article in the Miami Herald years ago (https://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/22/2420251/documentary-gets-to-the-root-of.html) but the link is broken. The Internet Archive doesn't have captures of it... maybe someone else knows another archive site that might? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing written about her is that she voice-acted a major character in Final Fantasy XIII which, if combined with other accomplishments would merit notability, by itself fails WP:ENT. MarkH21 (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently she also wrote and directed a play called "Read My Lips" about her experience with anorexia, according to a 450+ word story in the Herald Sun: Rose, Ella (13 Apr 2005). "Finding the write way". Herald Sun. p. 24. Bakazaka (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently working to find reputable sources to put in and edit. Please bear with me! MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She also directed and starred in Baby Let Your Hair Hang Down, a movie about alopecia. I had a lot of IMDB sources of her work in voice acting/other but they were deleted- unsure what's a reputable source to prove what she's done but I can add them here once I figure it out-- is IMDB not a reputable source for first reference? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source as it can be edited by anyone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! I had no idea. Thank you, that helps a lot. MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC
Comment As stated above, Baby Let Your Hair Hang Down movie as shown on ABC
Comment Played Ensign Raina Temple MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Played Sydney in Pay Day 2 Is this a good link? Would a YouTube link ever work to show her voice in the role? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finding_Nemo_Submarine_Voyage|Narrator for Finding Nemo: Submarine Voyage and Finding Nemo - The Musical MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk)
Comment Standup comedian in several outlets- what is the procedure for linking to those? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Involved in helping girls through virtual reality MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat's funny gameshow for kids Was on Jimmy Kimmel apparently, but that's an episode number of a lot of episodes and I'd need to look elsewhere besides IMDB. MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read My Lips play as stated above (Thanks for the help) MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many more voiceover projects, need to find the best links proving it going off of IMDB- would YouTube clips work or... MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Humanitarian Initiatives such as Arts Bridging the Gap, Hearts 4 Community Action (I have photos of her working with this group once uploaded to Public Domain) but unsure of if I can link the initiatives in general. I have print articles but would need to upload them to the site under public domain?? MatrimBloodyCauthon (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but none of these are in-depth coverage and in any case Wikia, Youtube, IMDb, press releases etc. are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see anywhere near sufficient IRS. If there were IRS for all of, or even just a significant number of, the facts in the unredacted version of the article, it would be a definite keep, but I am unable to find such. Perhaps move to DRAFT space until the current paid author can get their material together? Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I agree that the version of the article ca 29 December has a lot of information about her roles which could indicate notability (it also gives more to search on, now I've realised that it's there). My understanding of WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" is that if there is reliable evidence to verify those roles, that is enough - that it can be primary evidence to verify information (ie, websites etc of/from the companies that made the programs or games). I do consider the ABC News story mentioned above [2] to be independent, reliable and significant. The LA Weekly story has less coverage, but does verify one of her philanthropic roles. Perhaps draftifying would be the best option at this point, then editors who wish to can work on it until it's ready for main space. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, even if primary sources verify information, they do not demonstrate whether the productions themselves are notable under something like WP:NF. That needs to be demonstrated on top of verifying that the roles are significant. MarkH21 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the 29 December version of the article includes 3 blue-linked video games that she had significant roles in. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about whether her roles in Star Wars: The Old Republic (character not named anywhere on the Wikipedia article) and Payday 2 (side character mentioned once in a long plot synopsis) are really significant. The other role is the Final Fantasy XIII character which I would consider a significant role in a notable production as noted before. MarkH21 (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Viasat Film. To quote User:BabbaQ, Articles need sources. Yes they do. And these don't have them, as User:Ad Orientem points out. No sources, no WP:V, no article. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do, per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viasat Film Action

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

Not notable on its own; article too short Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

Keep - These are actual channels. Articles need sources though. And article size really does not matter in terms of deletion or keep. But more input neededBabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only reason this is a one-sentence article is because we've put all the relevant information in the infobox. Take the infobox into account and it actually provides a decent bit of information. /Julle (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Too short" should result in an effort to expand, not delete. Given the multinational nature of the channel it certainly seems notable. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Yes they exist, but existence doesn't mean notability. Sjö (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I have no objection to redirecting per Mrschimpf.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the article is too short, but should not be deleted. Passes WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This assertion has no sources. Please explain with examples how these articles meet WP:GNG. I can find program listings and non-independent sources but those don't add to WP:GNG.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viasat Film, along with Viasat Film Comedy, Viasat Film Family, Viasat Film Hits and Viasat Film Premiere This is per past consensus of multiplex premium film channels like HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz and Sky Cinema, where usually the additional channels those services have can't stand out on their own (and going by cable's future, will likely make way for just a couple channels thanks to VOD); these channels all have genres they usually doesn't drift from, and we can't really expand it beyond what we have now, along with the latter two, which describe 'proven film hits' and 'air only newer films'. No merge because there's just too little there, but all four should definitely be retained as plausible redirects. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "no merge because there's just too little there", have you taken the infobox into account? I'd argue it contains useful information. /Julle (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did; it contains cable positions easily merged into Viasat Film, but outside of that, the information is mainly duplicative since it's a suite of channels which all share the same history, outside of individual names. Nate • (chatter) 06:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some misunderstanding here. Article notability or use are not based on size. Every single of these articles should and can be expanded with individual information. All are clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already described above, these are all multiplex channels. They usually carry a certain genre of film and nothing more than that, and can be described easily in a paragraph in Viasat Film, as we have done for the other premium multiplexes we list here. Nate • (chatter) 08:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Articles are entirely unsourced and fail WP:V which is policy and non-negotiable. None of these can be kept without any sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Eigner (drummer)

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

Recreation of an article that was redirected to Depeche Mode. whatever the reasons were for the redirect, recreating it under another name flaunts that decision. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect from Christian Eigner to Depeche Mode seems sufficient here. There doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage for more than the mentions he gets there. --Michig (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just removed some copyvio, copy-pasted from the Zildjian website, that has been in the article since the first edit. Delete as WP:PROMO. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found to establish notability beyond his role in Depeche Mode. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This editor is disruptive, bordering on WP:TENDENTIOUS, and this article is just the latest noise as everyone above has said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smuckola (talk • contribs)

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Salmon

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

Notability tag from 2013 is right. You already know the deal with FMD, it’s not a RS. None could be found. WP:NMODEL. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some can be found in newspaper/periodical databases, which are the places to look for coverage of a non-superstar who worked in the 1990s. But basically it's two versions of a Canadian Press NewsWire story, and a Seventeen profile:

Heiman, Carol (14 July 1995). "Island Beauties - Is it the air? The wonderful climate?". Times Colonist. p. 1. is a 1100+word front page story, about 85% of which is specifically about Salmon.
Litwin, Grania (8 Aug 1995). "Her face, her fortune; At 19, B.C.'s Carrie Salmon is on her way to mega-model status". The Gazette. p. C.4. is a 650-word profile on her travels, appearances in magazines, and growing career (at the time). It also refers to a profile of Salmon in a French magazine, but does not specify which one.
"Personal style: Carrie". Seventeen. Vol. 52, no. 11. 1993. pp. 122–123. which is a text/photo profile of her personal style.

Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. MarkH21 (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised, see later comment. MarkH21 (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because an indiscriminate directory of models technically verifies that they exist. For a model whose most notability-approaching work was in the 1990s, possible media coverage might not Google very well, so this could potentially be recreated if somebody is able to dig up enough archived media coverage about her to get her over WP:GNG, but Bakazaka is correct that what they found isn't enough to do that. It takes considerably more media coverage to get a person over the bar if the notability criterion you're shooting for is "passes GNG because media coverage exists" than it does if you're shooting for something on the order of "won a major award for her work". Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To meet WP:NMODEL, we need reliable verification that she did do shows for the brands named in the article. To meet WP:GNG, we'd need SIGCOV in IRS. I think we would find both, particularly the former, if we had access to offline sources. Online, as well as the 1993 and 1995 sources Bakazaka found, I also found:

The New Yorker, Volume 73, Issues 1-6, 1997 [3], a snippet view that verifies that she modelled for Dior.
The Times Colonist also had a story in 1993 (18 March, pages C1 and C2) [4], 'Saanich teen: a role model', about the Seventeen profile, names her school, how she got to New York and then to Paris, had already modelled for Seventeen, Marie-Claire France and Italian Glamour.
The Times Colonist again, 3 April 1994, p. M4 - a paragraph in an article, which gives the information that she had also appeared in Vogue and Harper's Bazaar by then. [5]

So those sources confirm some information in the article, and could add more. The 1995 article also verifies magazines and mentions a brand, L'Oréal, not yet included in the WP article. Overall, I would say there are enough sources to verify that she does meet WP:NMODEL, and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find the sources Rebecca posted enough to meet either WP:NMODEL (only a Dior verification, not enough) or WP:GNG (passing mentions or not WP:SIGCOV which requires multiple significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in detail). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to hopefully get more discussion about the sources proposed by RebeccaGreen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. Revised previous vote on the basis of the subject appearing to meet WP:GNG based on the Montreal Gazette and Times Colonist sources given here, although I cannot verify the sources themselves nor whether they're really significant coverage as I do not have access. I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:NMODEL, but that's irrelevant if she meets GNG. The material from these sources need to be incorporated into the article. MarkH21 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable model who fails WP:NMODEL. A few articles in local newspapers and passing mentions in others are not significant coverage that shows that the wider world has taken any notice of her. That she has appeared in fashion magazine is pretty much run-of-the-mill for a model. Hzh (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Servants of God. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Vakayil

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

The only independent source that I can find for this priest is the one from The New Indian Express cited in the article saying that he has been declared a servant of God, the first of four steps towards canonization. If he is eventually declared a saint then he will almost certainly be notable per WP:ANYBIO, but without any further sources being a servant of God is not enough. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, if the problems with targeting can be resolved; else, delete. In principle, the rational redirect target would be List of Servants of God. But that's a markedly incomplete list whose inclusion criteria are not immediately forthcoming. Complicating the issue, there's an apparent content fork at Candidates for sainthood. I'm neither willing nor, frankly, competent in the topic area to try to clean this up. And I think there's at least an outside question about whether such a list is tenable in the first place (if the latter of the two lists represents the rate that people would be added, a full historical accounting would be, erm, long). If that's all fixable, then a redirect here is the obvious choice. Otherwise... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Declared a Servant of God, so on his way to canonisation. I think he meets the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing automatic about someone being declared a servant of God later being canonised, so the subject cannot be said to be "on his way to canonisation". This is a necessary, but far from sufficient, step on that path. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, he's on his way to canonisation... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sense that when I graduated from university I was on my way to a Nobel Prize. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to List of Servants of God). Redirect for the reasons stated by Nom - insufficient at this point - there are large numbers of SoG and being one doesn't make one notable. Additionally, since many of them don't make it to sainthood, deciding that reaching this level is equivalent because they will be saints is no more than WP:CRYSTAL. As to the redirect target, there appears to at least be some difference, but there are certainly contentfork issues and confusion. For the moment, one is so clear-cut that it makes logical sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JamStudio.com

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

Appears to fail WP:NWEB. The Media section consists of 19 links it asserts all feature the product. However, all of these reviews happened over a short period of time and there's little indication the site has had a lasting impact on the Internet or the culture surrounding it. Furthermore, most of the reviews are hosted on blogs or social media sites e.g. StumbleUpon and eMusician. The other coverage, save for Fox, is mainly localised or lacks editorial oversight. SITH (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Just a comment, StraussInTheHouse... eMusician (Electronic Musician) is an actual magazine rather than a blog, and a reliable source if cited properly... it's just not clear from the citation link in the article if the review was copied from Electronic Musician to a personal web page, and without a proper citation it can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) Sorry, I understand what you mean now... that Electronic Musician is reliable, but because it's hosted on a blog site, it can't be verified. Richard3120 (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. None of the sources are substantial enough / reliable enough to support a claim of notability for this flash-in-the-pan website. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tapan Sikdar. Enough discussion after relist and a redirect is merited. Merge a line or so; from history. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 17:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. Run of the mill political party / forum founded by Tapan Sikdar who was suspended from BJP[6]. Party never won any elections. Sikdar is back to BJP and no one heard about this party ever since. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd like to refer back to the discussions of the first AfD for this article. Noted that User:DBigXray keeps initiating deletion processes on weak grounds: "run of the mill" is not a valid deletion argument, moreover the deletion request misses that notability is not temporary. If the group was notable at any given moment, it fullfills general notability criteria. --Soman (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soman Please read and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person and Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your !vote which focussed on ad hominem failed to provide any reason or reliable source to prove the notability of this political party. You are using Strawman argument here. Contrary to what you are accusing me of, I have not nominated this article because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT or its a run of the mill party, it is nominated for AfD since it fails wikipedia's notability criterias WP:NORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. On AfD discussion, just making an Assertion of notability is not enough. If you can provide sources that prove this party was notable at any point of time, I am willing to withdraw my deletion nomination. But remember that those sources you present must pass WP:ORGCRIT on their own merit and should not attempt to WP:INHERIT notability from the founder. Per NORG the subject needs significant coverage in "multiple" independent, reliable secondary sources. --DBig Xrayᗙ 13:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in independent sources.[7][8] Also WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Kraose (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the analysis of these 2 sources in the table below.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Outlook	N	N	Y	N	N	The article is about the statement of K. N. Govindacharya with 1 passing mention of the subject. fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NOTINHERITED
Deccan Herald	N	N	Y	N	N	Interview / Statement of the founder Tapan Sikdar while announcing the launch of this forum. fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NOTINHERITED
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the WP:ORGCRIT notability requirements

--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This table is misleading. For example, the very fact that a newspaper with national reach does an indept interview with the leader about the founding of the new group is clear a valid qualifying source. --Soman (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualifying source" for the leader or the Manch ? The topic of this AFD discussion is "Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch", so the WP:ORGCRITE table of sources has to address whether the article does an in depth coverage of "Dr. Syamaprasad Jana Jagaran Manch" or not. Even if the article does a 3 para "in depth" interview of K. N. Govindacharya or Tapan Sikdar that is not helping the subject in anyway. These individuals are already notable and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. --DBig Xrayᗙ 20:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it just me or is it really the case that nowadays, nearly every time tables are used to analyse sources, there is some sleight-of-hand taking place? FOARP (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what I was thinking. It appears that a few editors think that presenting an argument in a table is somehow more authoratitive than presenting it in prose. It is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:GNG. Needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tapan Sikdar. Coverage in reliable sources is scarce; what material there is can be comfortably covered at the article about the founder. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Requires more updates. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as also made clear in the commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 17:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mareva Arnaud Tchong

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. The article is entirely reliant upon a primary source and an unreliable source, and source searches are providing no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if the Community of Christ publication listed could be seen as a indepdent enough source, the fact we have not an article at all but an interview means that we have on the not even one source that could be seen as adding toward passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find, besides the interview, were the two articles on the 'Tahiti Infos' site, one of which only mentions her name in a list of others. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete---Primary source is not in any way, shape, or form a reliable source and I can't seem much to justify inclusion in the google searches. --Church ^Talk 21:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santhana Devan (upcoming film)

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

Film has been in production since January 2017, but nothing since, with no expected release date, if any. Fails WP:NFF. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to fail all criteria of WP:NFILM. SITH (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG. When or if it eventually gets released with reliable sources coverage it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovial (watch)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Source 1 appears to be the only significant coverage which is independent that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources 2, 3 and 4 are self-published, source 5 is a mere directory entry and source 6 is 404ing. Overall, it looks like a pretty clear failure of WP:NCORP to me, especially considering offline sources don't seem to give much coverage either. SITH (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is hard to find sources for Jovial watch due to the common name perhaps Cunard (talk · contribs) can find sources. It seems to be notable based on the age of the brand. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources about Jovial in the searches I did. Cunard (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Europa Star article seems to be solid enough, but we need two. And I wouldn't think that would be hard for an 80-year-old Swiss watchmaking company, but apparently I'm wrong. I'm fairly certain the archived International Watch Club link (in See Also) is not a reliable source. I've tried searching just about every watch periodical I can find, including the Watch Times Middle East edition, to no avail. My advocacy for deletion is "weak" because I do suspect that somewhere in the last 80 years, this company has been addressed in print media. Perhaps in French, perhaps in Arabic. But not immediately searchable. However, I can't really justify retention based on that belief and one good source, so there we are. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was trying to find reviews and other such articles about this watch manufacture, I could see they are a worldwide seller, however the lack of editorials over this watch really isn't helping the article. So I agree with the nominators choice of WP:CORPDEPTH. Govvy (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. AfD has been relisted twice, but this is a pretty weak consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard S. Sheehy Jr.

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. Name checks, quotations and fleeting passing mentions do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was a notable position we would see more coverage than we do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject's historical role is discussed in "The Last Smith: Presidents and the Transformation of the RLDS Church" by William D. Russell, Journal of Mormon History Vol. 34, No. 3 (Summer 2008), pp. 46-84, also in "Grant McMurray and the Succession Crisis in the Community of Christ" by William D. Russell, Dialogue Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 2006), pp. 27-56, also in ”Community of Christ's Encounter with Asia: Challenges of Relevance, Pluralism, and Indigenization" by Steven L. Shields, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring/Summer 2013), pp. 1-44, also (briefly) in "Community of Christ's Evolving Approach to Mission" by Steven L. Shields, Journal of Mormon History Vol. 39, No. 2 (Spring 2013), pp. 139-164. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the potential sources presented by Bakazaka?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David D. Schaal

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Per source searches, no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he held a postion of leadership in a religious body that may have 250,000 members, but even that may be an overestimate of size. Nothing close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. Scott Murphy

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources appears to exist, per source searching. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Community of Christ would be small for a Catholic Diocese. The question here would a high level sub-administrator of a diocese be notable. The answer is not with this level of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gail E. Mengel

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are not providing multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of multiple sources pointing towards notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manyata Embassy Business Park

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

Bog-standard business park. No indication of anything which sets it apart from any other business park Calton | Talk 15:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many people work there? If it's 150,000 (as the article seems to imply) that's a very large business park, the size of a city, and we should certainly be covering it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the largest IT parks in India (second largest) and perhaps the largest IT park in Bangalore. A query of news articles on google will result in a plethora of articles. A notable landmark in the city known to all. The article surely needs significant improvement to bring better context, history and more content of interest to a reader. But surely a notable place and a "keep".
Speedy keep per Arunram. The deletion rationale makes me think that the nominator did not do a WP:BEFORE. Dee 03 11:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stassi D. Cramm

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Not finding multiple instances of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil films of 2020

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

WP:CRYSTAL. It's only just 2019, we don't need a list of Tamil films that are coming out next year just yet. The cited coverage is sparse and the list only contains one film, therefore failing the purpose of... well... a list. SITH (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AD ^Talk 15:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one film on the list has been in production since 2017, but shows no sign of actually being released. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now nominated that article for deletion too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God, we’re barely 9 days into 2019 and already people are whipping out the crystal ball.Trillfendi (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ridiculously unencyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Article can be recreated in 2020. Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Archive. It's not useful now, but will be in the future, might as well leave something for future wikipedians to build on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCOBOL (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, too speculative at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Brock

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC, as per source searches, including custom searches. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project Coin

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

Appears to be release notes, totally unsourced, fails WP:RELEASENOTES. SITH (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really see the point of this. Even if there was an exercise to gather suggestions and sources existed, that doesn't make it of encyclopedic interest. --Michig (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Random notes with no source. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirabai Devi

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

The two cited interviews are all I get from my source searches, leading me to suspect Devi fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 15:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AD ^Talk 15:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note the subject should note be confused with Mirabai or Mirabai Chanu who have similar names but they are notable and different.--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG non notable spiritual teacher that lacks significant coverage in independent reliable media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing, source-wise, has changed since my September PROD. – Teratix ₵ 23:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus after two relists appears to be in favor of keeping the article on the strength of the sources provided during discussion. clpo13_(talk) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Warfield

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

Needs evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO: There are hints of notability from what links here, but the article is the kind of self-conscious promo bio that usually indicates someone trying a lot harder on Wikipedia than a notable performer needs to. Closeapple (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination: The article, rather than establishing the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, is instead an illiterate mess of a promotion, complete with all-caps names and WP:PUFFERY of various associations with greatness, and wikilinks to the wrong things. Unsurprisingly, this performer had an album coming out when the article was written (2014), and had a first band album coming out exactly when the article was doubled (2017). However, there are some hints that Liv Warfield might be notable: Warfield seems to have received nominations for various urban-music-specific awards (one of 6 nominated for the 2014 Soul Train Music Award for Best New Artist, 5 nominated for BET Awards 2014 Centric Award, 5 nominated for the 2015 NAACP Image Award for Outstanding New Artist). She was the musical guest on an episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. So if someone can find significant reliable, independent coverage (i.e. not placed by labels/managers/promoters), good for them. But other than the Wikipedia links, I'm not even going to bother searching this time, because this is yet another of those WP:COI "contributions" that Kobalt Music Group seems to have inflicted on Wikipedia from time to time. For the record: Iloveartists2 (talk · contribs) created this 2014-03-24 with 2200 bytes of spam; 2606:6000:668e:6100:1938:59c0:8bb5:8d99 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added 1001 bytes of spam, with all-caps band name "Roadcase Royale" and name of their single in bold text externally linked inline, on 2017-04-27. --Closeapple (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see significant independent coverage to meet the GNG or anything that shows she meets WP:MUSICBIO. The closest thing to notability I see is a connection to Nancy Wilson and an attempt to be linked with Prince, but notability is not inherited. Sandals1 (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seeems to be plenty of coverage around, enough of it significant, e.g. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and performing on the Late Show [19] is a pretty big deal. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs assesment of the sources Michig posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. The intent of the article seems wholly promotional to me. --Lockley (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage, as found by Michig, including some that are individually significant coverage and all of which adds up to SIGCOV. She definitely meets WP:GNG. The article could be edited for encyclopaedic tone and to remove unnecessary detail, but that is a matter of improvement, not a reason for deletion. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done some expansion and cleanup and note that not only did she tour with Prince for 5 years, she's also interviewed jointly with Nancy Wilson about the new band, and is opening for Bob Seger on select tour dates. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Very clear consensus that notability is established and despite some clean-up issues doesn't foul overly afoul of the other issues initially raised. A more significant discussion was raised as to whether this was an unwarranted WP:CONTENTFORK, but consensus also agreed that it was a reasonable separation.

Discussion as to a page/name move can be raised as desired. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Christians in the modern era

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

In my opinion, this article (permalink) should be deleted. It is a huge Original Research and Synthesis. Because of the lack of secondary sources addressing the issue, the article has turned into a Directory and a big part of it is a hoax.

Not notable. The notability question has been placed in the talk page (and the relevant template in the article) but concerns were not addressed. There are plenty of articles describing Christian persecution in various places in the world. But we can not sum up the notability of persecution in different regions, to establish the notability of Christians in the world. Plus the phrase "in the modern era" is pretty vague. What exactly is the modern era? Modern history? The lack of secondary sources is evident from the first sentence which is not able to offer a valid definition of the article. Even the first reference does not even mention the word "Christian".
SYNTH The article is a huge Original Research and Synthesis. Many sources are not even talking about persecution, but about attacks on Christians. These attacks are have been upgraded to the status of "persecution". Ie in Israel, 3 teenagers have burned hundreds of Bibles, the article informs us.
Hoax. A large part of the article is a hoax. Claiming that there is Christian persecution in Europe, even in UK (which is not even a secular state) is ridiculus IMO. Hoax is the inevitable result of the SYNTH that has been taking place in the article.Cinadon36 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, everything above my comment, including the nomination paragraph, was all written by one user (Cinadon36) --1990'sguy (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP - Persecution of Christians is an obviously notable topic (e.g., in Egypt, Iraq, China, Afghanistan, India) and there's sourcing in independent, reliable sources to show it is. E.g., 1 2 3 4 5 6. In terms of coverage of worldwide persecution this is also easy to find: 1 2 3 4. If the article is full of BS, then go and clean up the article: AFD is NOT cleanup. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~Repurpose: per FOARP. The topic is clearly notable because of the vast amounts of coverage it's received, particularly in China. If you've got a problem with the title, take it to requested moves. If it's not an unambiguous hoax, improve it. SITH

User:StraussInTheHouse valid point, but Persecution of Christians which is notable, already exists and Nom failed to mention this. So you might want to reconsider. --DBig Xrayᗙ 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article in more detail, and its parent article, I see what you mean. The determination of "modern" does stink of original research, but if it could be made more objective and cleaned up I wouldn't be averse to a more meaningful content fork per WP:TOOLONG. But it does need to be made more encyclopedic, either by TLC or TNT. SITH (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either redirect and merge to Persecution of Christians or merge the (entire) modern era section from that article. For some bizarre reason, this article's hatnote implies that the modern era starts in 1989. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did consider this but there's a clear length issue with that article. 1989 is a weird starting point but ultimately that's a page-quality issue, not for AFD. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and take any valid material into the Persecution of Christians removing the time restriction on that -----Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is obviously notable. The article is obviously not a hoax. Deletion is not cleanup. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either redirect and merge This is a bit forky, and much of it seems dubious at best. Nor is there any clear definition of that "modern era" means.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A discussion is currently taking place about refactoring the various articles on Christian persecution, and depending on the result of that discussion the content in this article may merged elsewhere, but there is an abundance of sources relating to this topic and this article can not be reasonably argued to be non-notable or otherwise worthy of deletion. The nominating editor appears to believe that events need to fit their particular criteria to be condsidered "persecution", a view which I understand but for which they have not obtained consensus. -- LWG ^talk 14:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LWG for understanding my view, but my redflag is not "notability" but the violation of WP:OR. OR is a reason for Deletetion according to policy. Year 1989 is placed as the the first year of modern age which is absurd and OR that we can not deal with. Merging with "persecution of Christians and avoiding turning the article into a directory, is the best solution IMHO. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that were Persecution of Christians not already WP:TOOBIG. I don't consider the OR issue as serious as you do: when there is an abundance of material on a topic we have to decide how to split it up, and if we did that poorly we should fix the article, not delete it. The "modern era" problem can be solved simply by renaming the article and/or removing the hatnote. In short, there are a number of possible solutions, but deletion of the article is not a good option and other options should be discussed on the respective talk pages instead of here. -- LWG ^talk 15:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stopped taking the AfD seriously once I saw the unfounded claims of hoaxing. Article at this moment also seems good enough for drawing sensible conclusion. Excelse (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - while article is quite a mess at this point, I think it is possible that it could be salvaged if someone actually put in required time and effort. On a side note, the current title is ridiculous, if scope is intended to be about the Post-Cold War era then put it in the title!--Staberinde (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Christian persecution in the modern era is a well-sourced and clearly notable topic, clearly meeting WP:GNG. Numerous examples of modern-day Christian persecution exist, as a brief internet search I did found: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 --1990'sguy (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, this article is obviously notable and should be kept. I should mention that it is very fishy that the same editor who created the article called "Christian persecution complex" is the same individual nominating this article for deletion. Is this an attempt to try to create an ideological narrative? desmay (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an overwhelmingly notable topic, the article can be improved so original research is removed and only referenced content is used WP:AFD is not cleanup Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or if not Merge This is a notable topic. Maybe some clean up needed but there's not a case for deletion. Another alternative would be to merge the topic with the main Persecution of Christians page if there's too much overlap. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve to solve any NPOV and content issues. The main issue is not whether the persecution of Christians in the modern day is notable--it is, as many others have pointed out. The main issue is instead whether this should be a separate page from Persecution of Christians per policies like WP:PAGEDECIDE. I believe that this should be a separate page for several reasons. Firstly, I think it's the right editorial judgment. Christians being subjugated under the Roman Empire is a fundamentally different topic from Christians in the Middle East today being denied civil rights. Secondly, reliable sources see these as two different topics; you will never see BBC News give the context to the current crackdowns in China as "the Roman Empire also persecuted Christians." Finally, the fact that news articles are likely to continue reporting on this subject means there will be a lot to write about. --Leugen9001 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no issue with keeping it since it is a notable issue - e.g. some news articles just in the last month [20][21][22]. I see it as easily passing WP:GNG. The main problem I see with the article is NPOV (and the odd decision to use 1989 as the starting date), some of the entries cannot be described as persecution. That however is not a deletion issue, and AfD is not the place to tidy up articles. Using "hoax" as a rationale is just plain ridiculous. Hzh (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MICM Music Dataset

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

Non-notable dataset. The article is based entirely on the author's own publication and lacks any other independent expert sources that cover this specific dataset in sufficient detail (refs #2-3 are not about MICM and their usage for a "comparison" is original research and synthesis per WP:SYNTH). A search for other secondary expert sources revealed no coverage at all. GermanJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset for a similar article with closely-related arguments. GermanJoe (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As anyone can see on Google scholar, Researchgate, Arxiv, and other scientific sources, This dataset is a notable dataset and accepted as an standard in one conference and one ISI journal. Also the dataset is downloadable for free to see weather it is fake or not. In any conference and such a journal, also in arxiv there is a judgment process which indicates weather a publication and a dataset is notable or not. this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations. If this article will be removed from Wikipedia it would be less opportunity to the research society to use this unique dataset. Also the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCVC Speech Dataset that was in Wikipedia for more than 9 months was nominated to be deleted that makes me wonder how it could be possible that such an article after 9 months of existence in Wikipedia nominated for deleting. Both of datasets just by one person(GermanJoe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabemalek (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arguments like this dataset is a new dataset so it needs an opportunity to be in Wikipedia for getting more citations show a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose. This kind of promotional showcasing to raise the topic's citation count is prohibited on Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - If a dataset has no Wikipedia page it would be very difficult for research community to find and refer to it.Sabemalek (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabemalek: - that's irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't exist to raise the profile of certain articles in the research community. We are a tertiary source and depend on sources to demonstrate the reliability of what is included. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conferences and journals decide what papers to accept based on their usefulness and interest to the research community. We decide what articles to accept based on the existence of independent, reliable, secondary sources. I'm not seeing any of those, so delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

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

Apparently I started this article ten years ago in an attempt to assist an editor who had created it in the wrong place. I perhaps shouldn't have bothered, because it fails WP:ORG. Pontificalibus 12:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, no WP:SIGCOV. We all make/made mistakes, particularly back when WP policy was less well defined and we were all less familiar with it. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been some critical coverage around the organisation's closure: in Le Temps on 5 December, in 24heures (paywalled), and in a Forbes article on January 3. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the sources found by AllyD, I found a few passing mentions, but not enough to meet WP:NORG. The article itself is badly written from a WP:MOS point of view, and sourced only to the org's own website. If this were an org that came close to meeting WP:NORG, it might be worth keeping and putting in the effort to fix the structural problems with the article, but it's not, so it's not. I'd have no objection to somebody writing a new article on this topic if they could find better sources (or even adopting this one in draft/user space to work on), but it's not worth keeping in its current state. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Open Mainframe Project. Tone 20:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open mainframe

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

The article is about a non-notable neologism. 99Electrons (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Open Mainframe Project. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Open Mainframe Project, the only clear application of the term --DannyS712 (talk) 05:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is open mainframe a term associated with the Open Mainframe Project? The article is unreferenced, and searching openmainframeproject.org for examples of this term only finds partial matches. 99Electrons (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any reason to believe that the Open Mainframe Project uses this term; it reads more like somebody imagined what the definition should be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Open Mainframe Project as a plausible search term. There is no sourced content to merge. --Michig (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Saif Sporting Club season

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as a season article for a team not in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE sports reporting to meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by a user who claimed that WP:NSEASONS does not require fully professional status, however there is clear consensus that this is not the case (see 1, 2, 3 (with links to several more), 4, 5). Kosack (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As I've noted before, WP:NSEASONS is not an exclusionary standard on professionalism grounds and I don't know why we've corrupted it to read it that way. This is a season in a country's top flight and in theory has enough coverage to merit an article. That being said, there's only one citation so far, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. I'd like to see this developed because I'm curious if enough sources exist, but a quick couple BEFORE searches brings up cricket articles, so I don't have a good keep argument. SportingFlyer talk 08:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: season article for a top tier club in a national league, thus meeting WP:GNG. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify: after another look, the article lacks a lot of references meeting GNG, so it should be moved to draft space first until it is ready for a standalone article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kosack, WP:NSEASONS is top professional leagues, not a fully professional league Hhkohh (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh: As I said in my deletion rationale, there appears to be a consensus opposing that. In the first example user Number 57 comments, "it is agreed that there is clear consensus that when applied to football, NSEASONS requires a league to be fully-professional." Not to mention that there is no sign of the wider WP:GNG issue. Kosack (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC

)Pinging Number 57, thanks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the above, consensus is that with regards to football, WP:NSEASONS is only met if the league is fully-professional (see e.g. here). Number 5 7 09:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think the consensus is that strong, if it exists at all - having reviewed a number of these AfDs (primarily the ones linked at Leyton Orient), the professionalism was a requirement only you and Fenix Down really have discussed (also here: Barcelona B). There are many football season articles that have been deleted for failing WP:NSEASONS, but "failing WP:NSEASONS" generally appears to be more of a "fails WP:GNG/WP:NOTSTATS" argument (as these articles require or should require prose) instead of any sort of professionalism requirement. See 1 2 3 4 5 in which you are the only one making a professionalism argument (with one exception); they are also examples from the English football league pyramid, which doesn't help the project in Bangladesh. So I really don't believe a professional league requirement is any sort of consensus, but rather a "Football League" consensus. To be fair, non-top flight teams do face an uphill battle anyways, as do semi-pro teams, but those leagues aren't typically covered as well. You could easily have an instance where one team passes WP:NSEASONS with flying colours (everything they do gets reported on, think Rangers F.C. (Scotland) in the Third Division) and every other team in the league does not (scores only, etc.) The test really needs to be whether WP:GNG is satisfied through non-routine reporting as opposed to any sort of arbitrary cutoff... SportingFlyer talk 06:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus exists; if you want some non-English examples: Faroe Islands, Iran, Luxembourg, Scotland, Wales. Worth noting that Fenix down actually started a couple of them (the Faroese and Welsh ones) on the basis that clubs need to play in a fully-professional league, so their claim below that their interpretation that the consensus only covers English leagues doesn't appear to be correct. Number 5 7 10:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think we should be deleting articles based off an arbitrary rule without looking at WP:GNG (which some of those articles clearly fail.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comments above that the consensus is that leagues must be fully professional. My interpretation of previous discussions was that those AfDs established a very specific consensus, namely that whilst there is a sufficient degree of professionalism within the National League in England, that it is too far down the pyramid to be considered a "top professional league" per NSEASONS. The AfDs noted above to my mind either deal with the English pyramid question or leagues which are deomnstrably semi-professional. Discussions both here and here show, that whilst there is not consensus that the league is fully professional, that there is a significant level of professionalism in this competition beyond that found in the AfDs above for those competitions. Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a top-level football club in Bangladesh. This season has received significant coverage particularly in this piece. FOARP (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article is really about McKinstry and doesn't give much details on the club, let alone this individual season. Kosack (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another instance of system bias and discrimination. This is a top level club and they deserve to have an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.15.225.128 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was under the impression that to satisfy WP:NSEASONS for football that you had to at least play in a fully-professional league as defined by WP:FPL. If that is the case, then this does not satisfy that requirement. If not, it still fails WP:GNG. The only other sources are Soccerway and some preseason article about the team; that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Jay eyem (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. In my personal opinion, this is a clear violation of NOTDIRECTORY. However, eveb after 2 relists, there clearly is no consensus here. If no improvement is forthcoming, this could be taken to AfD again after a suitable waiting period of, say, 3 or 4 months. Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR as the only source is a link to a directory and only two have articles. Churches wouldn't pass WP:NCHURCH and are not inherently notable just because they exist. The article passed a previous AfD back in 2008 on the basis is that churches are as notable as schools in a district are - this isn't and still isn't the case. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that NOTDIR is not violated (there are not ephemera like telephone numbers) and except for fact that some items on the list are proven Wikipedia-notable by having articles and others probably being individually wikipedia-notable and except for the fact that further others can be appropriately covered in a list-article. --Doncram (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. Catrìona (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above; a list of largely non-notable churches Spiderone 10:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable directory. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a valid split from the parent article and a notable, valid and encyclopedic subject for a list article Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is a directory of non notable churches, plain and simple. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, where the few notable examples can be listed/linked if they aren't already (Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches has three articles apart from this list). I don't see a reason why we'd list every nonnotable church for this organization rather than summarizing with numbers and geographic distribution, and notable/significant examples only. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly how we ought to cover churches that are not idependently notable: listify them, as one of the alternative to deletion in the guideline WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if they aren't notable, we don't list them. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. That article is not too long to accommodate this list per WP:CSC. However if that article is regarded as being so short that accommodating this list would give it unseemly prominence, then consideration should be given to providing an external link to the sole source instead. --Pontificalibus 11:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list is rather long and with only two entries with articles (and even then they don't appear notable) I don't support a merge on those grounds either. An EL on that target article might be sufficient. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there are 117 according to the EL already on the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland article, so a further EL is not needed. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, are you able to clarify your vote? It looks like you voted keep but you havent made it clear. Thanks Nightfury 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. (I used a keyboard macro that should have expanded, but didn't ) DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG's comments. The article contains a number of blue links which shows the possibility of making the article pass WP:NLIST. Whether the listed names would pass WP:NCHURCH or not, it is a content related matter and should be discussed on talk page that what should be listed and what should be omitted. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has just two. There is no need to discuss it on talk. Ajf773 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if only a few notable churches are in the list, this article has the potential to be expanded to discuss the notable ones more. Pages like this could easily sit around for a while before someone with an interest in the topic picks it up and starts working with it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable churches are best discussed in detail in their own articles. Ajf773 (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost entirely split votes aside from one merge comment. Recent comments lean towards keep, though I'd like to see more reasoning shown. If anyone is unhappy with this relist, let me know on my talk page and I will revert it if a good reason is provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete because only two of these churches are even notable. The rest of “list” is just text. If an article doesn’t meet GNG it shouldn’t be an article. The two churches here that do need to stand alone. Trillfendi (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete this is clearly a directory with no clear potential for improvement. Any content about the few churches which are notable on this list should be done in the parent article. Not seeing a need for redirect either as readers are far more likely to be looking for the parent article over this one anyway.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~^{Already voted above} More reasoning (I voted before, not sure if it is allowed to vote twice). Specifically, this is not a blatant attempt at self-promotion of an organization, which is the whole point of WP:NCHURCH and the related policy for schools. As for whether it is notable, if you type "baptist" and "ireland" into Google scholar, you get a variety of third party sources. So the topic is notable. Why was this article created? Probably because someone didn't want to clutter up the main denominational article, and instead link to the list through a Wikilink. Sure, if the original author knew how to make a collapsable template, he or she might have done so, but this was easier, and it works too. Why can't you have multiple ways to do something?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're misunderstanding what this actually is, particularly given how you say you searched for it (this isn't a list of all baptist churches in Ireland). This is a list of churches affiliated with the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland. No one is disputing here that this organization is notable. The question as I see it is what the informational value is of listing out all the nonnotable individual churches that belong to this organization, and I haven't seen an argument for doing that yet. I'm tending to view it more like a list of companies, which we would tend to limit only to notable examples. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Info is factual and verifiable. Good for records. Wikipedia also has lots of "List" pages like this. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be verifiable, but that isn't the point of this discussion. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some here are proposing that notability must be regressive to the sub-parts of an article. It makes no sense to assume every word, topic, organization, etc. of wikipedia must be notable for an article to be notable. Or even that there must be a percent like 5%, 10% ect. must be notable. See Münchhausen trilemma for more on regression and the alternatives to using it. Resolving the Münchhausen trilemma is an epistemological question. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a philosophy, so assumptions (even if practical and philosophically naive) about which fork of the trilemma to come down on should have no basis in determining an article's deletion.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See instead sophistry. I’ll mark your argument down as “why not?” Which is not very convincing, nor specific at all to the content or subject. postdlf (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably could/should be included onto Template:Lists of religious worship places. Lists of "notable" churches, i.e. lists of individual churches which are themselves Wikipedia-notable (have Wikipedia articles) plus select other churches having supporting references about them, are usually/always notable in Wikipedia. Here, at first glance it may seem there are no links to any individual churches' articles, but in fact there are already 2 or 3 bluelinks to existing church articles. See also Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches. It would help if there were more. But if we have some examples in a category, as we do here, then there can/should be a list-article, basically, by wp:CLNT.

Note, a recently closed AFD (deletion nominator was the same as here?) was for List of road churches in Finland, where i voted keep based on establishing that some/many/most were individually notable (based on sources discussed, although seeming not to have wikipedia articles yet) and then eventually 40 or so links to new or already existing Wikipedia articles were added and it was closed Keep.

Here, probably some of these are historic churches, perhaps listed on an Irish national historic register, or otherwise individually notable from any kind of coverage? Could we add any detail with sources about any of these? But we have already several having articles, so keeping the list is obviously the correct thing to do. If editors want to discuss list-item notability, i.e. whether its coverage should be limited to fewer items than those already being bluelinks, then that is a matter for Talk page discussion, not AFD. --Doncram (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are these all the AofB churches in Ireland? are they all notable? if not, why are they included in the list? ie. WP doesn't have lists of all the residents/businesses/schools/libraries of every community, just the notable ones, indeed there are numerous communities that don't have a seperate list, they have a section list, (sometimes) its only when that section causes the article to be out of balance that a breakout list occurs, why are churches any different? so whats the problem with having a section called "Notable churches" within Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, include the churches that have their own article, and the churches that are just awaiting an article ie. the ones alluded to by Doncram above (with a couple of appropriate references of course) ps. i'm a Merge. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two on the list with articles and no other sources, as of now, to signify notability for all the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NOTDIRECTORY. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: While the two bluelinks happen to remain bluelinked they should be listed somewhere, so either keep or merge/redirect is appropriate. The problem is that the bluelinked pair appear not to meet any kind of notability criteria sufficient for retention as articles. So, on the presumption that that is the case: get them deleted first, include https://www.baptistsinireland.org/churches/ as an external link at Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland and put in an anchor there, try redirecting this article there (there's probably some rule that IAR can be applied to), and if that's reverted then renominate, at which point some of the arguments in this AFD will have been nullified, and the blacklinked list will be clearly less useful than the church's own directory. So I guess that's a vote for "Keep or Merge but Delete or Redirect". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Issaluk

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

WP:BLP of an athlete, actor and cultural educator, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. As always, none of these are fields where a person is granted an automatic entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because he's technically verifiable as existing, but the referencing here is not cutting it in terms of establishing that he's notable:

His claims of notability as an athlete derive from sporting events, such as the International Arctic Games, that do not confer an automatic pass of WP:NATHLETE without solid sourcing, but are referenced solely to a couple of short pieces in community weekly pennysavers that aren't widely distributed enough to pass WP:GNG if they're the best you can actually do for referencing.
His appearance in a short documentary film is metareferenced to a Vimeo copy of the film, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage about the film.
His authorship of a book about traditional Inuit sport is metareferenced to its own publication details, rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage about the book to get him over WP:NAUTHOR.
His claims of notability as an actor boil down to supporting and bit parts, not major roles for the purposes of clearing WP:NACTOR, and are completely unreferenced. But actors do not get a free NACTOR pass just because roles have been listed, as that would hand a free inclusion pass to every single actor who exists at all — the notability test for an actor is the reception of reliable source media coverage about his work as an actor, but none has been shown here at all.
His claims of notability as a cultural educator include being awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, a one-off award which was presented to 60,000 Canadians in 2012 and thus does not instantly make them all notable in and of itself if no other notability for other reasons has been properly demonstrated; participating in an expedition that's "referenced" only to a photograph on the self-published website of the organization that sponsored that expedition; and winning a non-notable award from that same organization, as referenced only to an article in that organization's own self-published member magazine which glancingly namechecks Issaluk's existence in the process of being primarily about somebody else.

All of which means that none of the referencing here is properly establishing him as notable at all, and none of the claims are "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— KEEP:

@Bearcat, I've just updated the article based on the issues you reference above. I definitely feel the article should not be deleted, as I believe Issaluk meets the standards for NACTOR / GNG having been the lead in a film which debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival (Kajutaijuq), supporting roles in two other TIFF films (Indian Horse and Falls Around Her), supporting roles in high profile film and television (Indian Horse was produced by Clint Eastwood, and the Terror was produced by Ridley Scott), etc. Most recently he was Romesh Ranganathan's guest star on his primetime BBC2 program.

My sense based on the social media around him is that when people search for him they are looking for him as an actor, so I've revised the article so that that sections on Traditional Inuit Games and Community Work come later (and I've kept them intact because they are relevant to his career as one of the only Inuit actors to appear in feature films and television).

Let me know what you think. Qilalugaq (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already explained, actors are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles, or even because of where the films they had roles in happen to have premiered or what other notable person happens to have produced them — notability is not inherited, so an actor is not automatically guaranteed an article just because he appeared in a film or TV show that has one. The notability test for an actor is not passed just because his performance in a role can be technically verified by IMDb, or the self-published website of the theatre where he had a stage role, or the inclusion of his name in the caption to a photograph — the notability test for an actor is passed or failed by the degree to which his performances have or have not made him the recipient of distinctions, such as Canadian Screen Award nominations and/or media coverage about him. None of your new sources are doing much to improve the notability case here — too many of the new sources you've added are still primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting media, and even among the ones that are media, the only one that's about him to any non-trivial degree, rather than just glancingly mentioning his name in the process of being about something or somebody else, is still a limited circulation local newsweekly and not a major media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he clears WP:GNG, having good mentions in the Mississauga News, the CBC, and Nunavat News, with supporting documentation elsewhere. Curiocurio (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have a "good mention" in the CBC, he just gave a brief soundbite at the film's premiere in an article that's about the film, not about him. People get Wikipedia articles by being the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG, not by being soundbite-givers in articles about other subjects — and neither the Mississauga News nor the Nunavut News are widely distributed enough to constitute "enough media coverage to clear GNG" if they're the best the subject can actually show. And "supporting documentation" doesn't carry notability either, if the person hasn't been properly shown to clear WP:GNG in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat Thanks so much for following up. I 100% understand what you're saying and why you're saying it and appreciate the time you're taking with this. I have added new secondary sources from the Toronto Star which discuss Issaluk's acting more directly as well as an interview with him featured in this month's issue of Canadian Geographic. Part of the difficulty in sourcing this particular article is exactly why I wrote it in the first place: major media outlets (the kind that ensure an article easily passes Wiki GNG standards) don't tend to cover Arctic or indigenous issues and people. So as a writer who wants to see better representation on Wikipedia and help to grow WikiProject Arctic and WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America (both of whom Issaluk is indexed under), I'm often stuck using sources from less-circulated media (like smaller newspapers in the north that are often considered too local to be objective) or settling for small clips or soundbites of Arctic/indigenous actors in articles that spend the majority of the time talking about the widely-recognized Southern or European stars. (It's definitely disheartening to see so many non-white actors/artists on the AfD chopping block over precisely this issue.) In Issaluk's case, however, I genuinely believe we've reached the proper GNG threshold based on Wiki's guidelines, but of course I welcome further discussion, as I know we have the same goal, which is to democratize knowledge without sacrificing rigor. Qilalugaq (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, as important as it is to improve our representation of underrepresented groups, we don't and can't do that by creating special lowered notability standards under which members of minority groups can get in the door on less accomplishments, and/or less reliable source coverage, than a straight white man would need to show. As unfortunate as it is that some groups of people don't get as much media coverage as others do, it's also not our role to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by waiving our notability and sourcing standards just because the subject happens to be a person of colour, or a woman, or LGBTQ, and on and so forth. (For example, it's not our responsibility to institute a rule that only straight white men would actually have to pass a notability standard before they get in the door, while women and people of colour and LGBTQ folk could get in the door just for existing.) Unfair though it may seem if you believe in the goal of improving representation (which I do as well, by the way), we can't do it by waiving our notability and sourcing rules just because the subject happens to be a member of one of the underrepresented groups — we do it by working harder to find the women, LGBTQs and people of colour who do meet our existing notability and sourcing standards and are just getting ignored or missed, rather than by creating special reduced notability and sourcing standards for them. Bearcat (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussions about the sources in the article regarding the WP:GNG/WP:BASIC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fair bit of Romesh Ranganathan's documentary, in which Issaluk acted as Ranganathan's guide to the arctic, was about Issaluk rather than just featuring him. Those in the UK can access it here. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still firmly in Keep over here, especially since the Romesh's BBC show does focus quite a lot on Issaluk as a notable person (presumably also why he was chosen to be the star), though I understand that not all countries are able to view this so perhaps something could be added to the article to clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qilalugaq (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Do know that you cannot vote twice. Removed the bolded Keep vote. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found evidence of him winning medals at the Arctic Winter Games in 2002 (1 gold, 1 silver) in a Team Nunavut report [23]. The 2002 game results do not seem to be on the Arctic Winter Games website [24], and no years prior to 2000 are listed either. That aside, I believe he does meet WP:BASIC, as there is certainly coverage "in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Some of it does appear to be significant coverage, and "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Besides the sources currently in the article, I found other coverage too, including a review of his book [25], and other news coverage, such as [26]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is an article on his book in a children's lit review journal, and his book is also cited in an article in University of Kent's Transmotion (I have added these references to the main article). While I don't think he would pass NAUTHOR on its own, I definitely think he meets BASIC. Gilded Snail (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was not the easiest close I've done but overall I find the analysis of sources cited to support WP:N by DBigXray to be persuasive and the responses to their analysis, not so much. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh

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

This is a non-notable political party, a splinter group of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (precursor of BJP). The lone source that has been cited for its existence has gone dead, and I can't find any other. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Fails WP:NORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We really shouldn't consider deletion of this article until we've had input from Hindi speakers because likely any sources that may exist will be in Hindi. Let's hit up the India project and ask them. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP India was already hit up with edits by User:Abelmoschus Esculentus above who added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India which is how I got notified. India has a lot of major English newspapers in every region, so if the subject is notable, coverage in english media exist mostly. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG and per WP:NOTINHERITED. Run of the mill promotional article about a political party in India. This party has never won any elections and there is a complete lack of reliable sources discussing this non notable political party. The article is promotional and tries to WP:INHERIT notability from Jan Sangh, which is a notable party but "Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh" is not notable. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am unable to find coverage of substance. Vanamonde (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, party is notable, in press we find a number of articles in which the party is the main subject: Times of India, Times of India, The Tribune, The Hindu, The Hindu, The Tribune, Jagran, etc. --Soman (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soman: All those sources are doing is reproducing press releases or statements by party officials. These bits of information do not constitute intellectually independent coverage, and as such do not count towards GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria, the five components must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met. Here is the table analysing the sources presented by Soman. There must be multiple sources passing the criteria, but as of now there isn't a single source meeting the 5 points, hence the subject fails WP:ORGCRIT.--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Times of India	N	N	Y	N	N	A single-para article based on the press statement issued by ABJS
Times of India	N	N	Y	N	N	A single-para article based on the press statement issued by ABJS
The Tribune	N	N	Y	N	N	statement of president of the national youth wing of the ABJS
The Hindu	Y	N	Y	N	N	article based on the statement of the ABJS after its meeting
The Hindu	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-sentence mention of ABJS in the article about municipal election results.
The Tribune	N	N	Y	N	N	Statement of chief general secretary of ABJS
Jagran	N	N	Y	N	N	Statement of regional general secretary of ABJS
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements WP:ORGCRIT

--DBig Xrayᗙ 19:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that these are simply press-releases (which would be these newspapers re-printing something the party had written verbatim). They are coverage of party announcements in reliable sources, which is different as it shows those sources at least thought the party notable enough to report their announcements. I am not sure this makes for WP:SIGCOV though, since they aren't coverage of the party per se. I also see some Google books coverage 1 2. Leaning towards a very week keep but still don't feel I know enough about this topic to really say either way. FOARP (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for nominating this article for deletion is that the party pretends to be the authentic Jan Sangh. That is what its web site says, viz., that it was founded in 1951 by Shayama Prasad Mukherjee. There are no secondary sources that verify this claim, and the page has become an unsourced POV pit. If any of the Keep voters are willing to clean up the page and maintain it, there would be no harm in keeping it. They shouldn't be expecting the community to waste its meagre resources on this pointless page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? "Akhil Bhartiya Jan Sangh (also known as ABJS) was originated from the roots of Bhartiya Jana Sangh. Bhartiya Jana Sangh or Jana Sangh was established in 1951 by Shri Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who died in 1953. Akhil Bhartiya Jan Sangh was established in 1979." Isn't that a correct statement, that ABJS originates in the original Jana Sangh? Clearly the article indicates that the 1951 BJS and the 1979 ABJS are distinct entities. --Soman (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soman AFAIK, Jan Sangh merged with other parties into Janta Party which further disintegrated into other parties. BJP is what Jana Sangh morphed into. As of now it is not even established which year did ABJS came into existence. The year 1979 without any ref, was in the infobox and it was me who copied it from infobox it into the article, I tagged it as ^{[citation needed]}. Remember Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and reliable third party source covering the subject according to the above criteria is what this article is severely lacking. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed 2 sources presented by FOARP, 1 wrongly mentions Bharatiya Jana Sangh as ABJS and that too in passing. While 2 has 2 mentions in passing The second one is simply the post held by Balraj Madhok as the president of the subject. both these sources fail to pass WP:ORGCRIT--DBig Xrayᗙ 22:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources shown here or in the article (which is a dead link to 2014 election results) pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely a notable subject with large amount of coverage in independent reliable academic references.[27] (by Sterling Publishing), [28][29] I could discover more but these are indeed enough assuring that notability exists. Dead link do count as reference see WP:LINKROT. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing between "Bharatiya Jan Sangh" BJS and "Akhil Bharatiya Jan Sangh" ABJS. All the sources that you presented above are referring to Bharatiya Jan Sangh, that was founded by Syama Prasad Mukherjee in 1951 (even though your source mentions ABJS as a synonym of BJS). Here is another reliable source that mentions the 1951 conventions correctly In 1951, he was the convener of the first convention of Bharatiya Jana Sangh and was appointed the national Secretary--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. All of these sources (which I cited) are significantly discussing "Akhil Bharatiya Jana Sangh" as anyone can read only by clicking on the links. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DBigXray is right. The first source given by Shivkarandholiya12 is using "Akhil Bharatiya Jana Sangh" for the party founded in 1951. Here is a bit more detail of the snippet [30]. In fact, there are may other sources using this term for that party [31]. The "Akhil" prefix was used occasionally. See for example, Donald Anthony Low (ed), Soundings in Modern South Asian History. Accordingly, Akhil Bharatiya Jana Sangh should redirect to Bharatiya Jan Sangh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First source has discussed the party which was founded after 1979. 39.53.191.74 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no independent coverage of note and India has a history of party schism, with people going off in a huff, shouting loudly to the media and then achieving nothing of note. Quite often, the splinter group seems to end up back inside the party from which it split. A single sentence in the main party article would do the job nicely here - this thing isn't even worthy of a redirect because it hasn't actually done anything. that I can see. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage to allow separate article. Article is about a party that was founded in 1970s by Balraj Madhok. Previous stable version mentioned Balraj Madhok as the founder,[32] but now the article is lacking any mention of him. Many relevant sources sufficiently discuss the party that was founded in 1970s by Balraj Madhok.[33](a whole chapter) [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] The article can be made larger with these sources. 39.53.191.74 (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, 39.53.191.74 Please note that Balraj Madhok is notable on his own. The fact that Balraj Madhok is notable does not guarantee that his party (that he founded) will also be notable, notability is not inherited see WP:NOTINHERITED, many of the sources you have presented have passing one line mentions or obituary articles of Madhok. these sources with passing mentions of the name does not pass the WP:ORGCRITE criteria. The subject must have significant coverage in "multiple" independent, reliable secondary sources. to pass the criteria. I have analyzed these sources.--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Jansangh (Madhok) Manifesto, The Election Archives, Volumes 53-58 (a whole chapter)	?	N	N	N	N	The Manifesto of the party prepared for contesting an election is a primary and self published source
Communalisation Of Politics And 10th Lok Sabha Elections, Asghar Ali Engineer	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-line passing mention of Madhok saying that he revived Jansangh.
Assembly elections, 1980	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single line mention That ABJS will be contesting in the 1980 election.
shodhganga	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This source discusses Bharatiya Jana Sangh and BJP in great detail but does not even mention the subject ABJS.
Political awakening in Kashmir	N	Y	Y	Y	N	The source does not mention ABJS even in passing.
Deccanherald	N	Y	Y	Y	N	An article that reports suspicion that the posters in the city might be from ABJS, but only mentions it in 1 para. Fails significant criteria.
patrika	N	N	Y	Y	N	Balraj Madhok's obituary with 1 line passing mention of ABJS. Coverage of Madhok that fails WP:NOTINHERITED
aajtak	N	N	Y	Y	N	Balraj Madhok's obituary with 1 line passing mention of ABJS, and also notes that ABJS "failed as a party". Coverage of Madhok that fails WP:NOTINHERITED
theprint	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This source discusses Bharatiya Jana Sangh and BJP in great detail but only mention the subject ABJS in passing stating that ABJS remained a "sulking fiefdom of Madhok".
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements WP:ORGCRIT

--DBig Xrayᗙ 21:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources referred. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Notable party which has attracted enough academic publications. Radhamadhab Sarangi ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 17:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply insisting that significant coverage exists is meaningless. Intellectually independent, substantive coverage of the organization that is actually the subject of this page needs to be demonstrated, and it simply hasn't been so far. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IET Smart Cities

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal, has not even started publishing yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator with reason "The journal is published by IET - one of the world oldest and established institution. the journal is new but definitely will be indexed. I prefer you allow time for editors to expand the content and cite additional independent references rather than proposing fast delete." As I dropped my crystal ball yesterday, I maintain that this is way too soon. PROD reason stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and spectacular failures of WP:N / WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Times and Seasons (blog)

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

A non-notable blog that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. Source searches and those in the article are only providing passing mentions, and those mentions are limited to stating what people have posted on the blog. Finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the blog itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NWEB. Unfortunately it can't be A7'd because it makes a credible claim of significance. SITH (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. author request (non-admin closure) b uidhe 16:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lim

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:CREATIVE. The draft was declined twice at AfC, then cut-and-paste moved to article space by LillyAndalucia who appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falling Sickness (band)

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

Fails all criteria of WP:BAND, I see little evidence of passing WP:GNG either. SITH (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article contains a discography of the band, but all of the entries in it are in red links, suggesting they are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, a Google search for Falling Weakness does not fall throw up many hits for the band until one gets to the Wikipedia article. Vorbee (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Network Information Center

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

I prodded it with 'Seems to fail WP:Notability (websites)/WP:Notability (media).' only to notice it was prodded a few years back. While the prod was removed, I am not convinced this website is notable - no in-depth coverage, sources are mostly primary or in-passing. At best, if there is no consensus for hard delete, I would suggest a soft delete through redirect and perhaps some minor merge to the University of Texas at Austin page. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Smyser

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

Having toured with notable musicians doesn't make oneself a notable musician. Little evidence Smyser passes WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are passing mentions here and there, perhaps an album review, but he appears to be a musician who has a local reputation only and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't meet any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. (I forgot to mention: there is a 'biography' at All About Jazz, but they allow self-submissions of such material, so it's not independent of the subject.) EddieHugh (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bounding Main

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

This band exists but there no indication that they are Wikipedia notable per WP:BAND. The article has been around for awhile and there appears to have been some COI editing to it over the years. There's quite a number of sources being cited, but many appear to be WP:PRIMARY or otherwise trivial types of mentions, while most of the albums appear to be self-published. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 09:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because their nine trips to perform in other countries between 2008–2017 satisfies WP:BAND criteria #4. Johnson487682 (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion #4 states that they need to have received "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources" of these tours, not just have toured. All of the sources cited for their overseas performances seem to be just name mentions and primary sources like press releases, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source appears to be significant coverage, possibly this one as well? I can't read the articles because of GDPR (*Rolls eyes*) just the snippets that are visible from the Google search. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is an article about a parade in Racine in November 2018. All that is says about the band is the following:
  Bounding Main, a Racine-based vocal group, is set to perform a unique blend of maritime and holiday themed songs. Since forming in 2003, they have been performing shows filled with spirit, humor and harmony all over the United States and Europe.
  That's doesn't seem like significant coverage at all to me. The band is mentioned by name a single time and with a brief promotional sounding description. The second link is an article about a Renaissance Faire the band appeared at in 2012. There's a little more about the band in this article than the parade article, but again it seems more trivial coverage than significant coverage (at least to me). The band is mentioned in a section titled "Familiar faces" and the focus seems to be more on one of the band's members than the band itself. Local bands appearing at local festivals often get mentioned in articles written for local newspapers by local writers, especially if the band has a local following and has appeared at the festival before; however, I don't think that kind of local notability equals Wikipedia notability. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bounding Main was recorded by the British Library's Sound Archive. See reference on their site. They have been interviewed and had radio segments aired in the Netherlands and on Armed Forces Radio. Their music is played internationally. Please reconsider deletion as they are relevant in the maritime music genre.

British Library's Sound Archive: Selected by the British Library for preservation in their sound archive. Full live performance recorded at the Falmouth International Sea Shanty Festival, Falmouth, Cornwall, UK, June 2017.[36] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantyfan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am NOT A FAN of such blatantly promotional edits from a single-user account but there's a degree of notability here to be found under a lot of cruft. --Lockley (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Expression

AfDs for this article:

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

As per source searches, this is a non-notable podcast that does not meet WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE did not find any significant coverage for this podcast. PS - the previous AFD discussion was clearly wrongly decided: every argument in favour was WP:ILIKEIT, WP:FAME, or WP:USEFUL FOARP (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The argument that notable people were interviewed on the blog used 7 years ago during the last nomination, does not actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a WP:SNOW keep. The consensus is that the subject passes WP:NPOL. I noticed the 10 Jan- 17 Jan comment, but I feel there is enough consensus that likely will not change for that one day anyways. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav Nathwani

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

Former senator (maybe?), believed to be used by the subject and their relations/colleagues to promote subject. No immediate notability seen through current cites and historical ones Nightfury 08:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from filer:- DeltaQuad, I note the page is fully protected, would you be able to add the AfD template to the page? Thanking you. Nightfury 08:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Note to the closer, this should be closed only 7 days from when the notice was posted 01:59, January 10, 2019.‎ -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 08:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." The subject of this article has been a member of a state legislature, and is therefore presumed notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep members of state senates are default notable. It does not matter if they have short terms of office. As long as they serve any term at all they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Members of subnational legislatures are considering notable per WP:POLITICIAN--Mpen320 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POLITICIAN is unambiguous -- it doesn't matter how long someone serves in a state senate; as long as he or she is a member of that state senate, he or she is notable. That's a decision that's been made through a longstanding consensus. I created this article, and I have no ties to the subject. Whether the subject edited the article after I created it is frankly irrelevant as long as it's not promotional or inaccurate. Jarvishunt (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering he held two offices at the same time, the whole thing seems sketchy to me.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except one of those offices is considered notable per WP:POLITICIAN and whether or not you think someone holding two offices at the same time is sketchy does not change WP:Notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree I don't agree, this guy is not Notability.George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." It has already been established that the length of tenure is not a deciding factor. What is your objection to notability other than you don't like the guy?--Mpen320 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would pass WP:NPOL as a former member of a state legislature. I think the concern for some here may be that Nathwani was appointed in the six-week period between the 2018 election and the swearing-in of a new State Senate. If that's the case, it may be a slight grey area (did he actually get sworn in, or was he a placeholder? Was the Senate in session during this time?) but regardless I think that existing notability policies still apply. Could use more WP:RS, but passes notability checks. Bkissin (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was sworn into office (see Senate Republican press release here. His profile on the Illinois General Assembly website is here. He even sponsored 4 bills. It was a caretaker appointment. Chris Nybo resigned after losing to Suzy Glowiak. Nathwani was a full voting member of the Illinois Senate even if his term was from November 2018 until January 2019.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some WP:COI concerns, with the subject of the article making changes to the page. Bkissin (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So those changes can just be eliminated or revised, correct? Why delete the whole article?--Mpen320 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I voted to keep the article. I was not saying that the entire article should be deleted, I was merely voicing concerns about COI and trying to determine the details here. Remember to assume good faith with other users. Bkissin (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean accuse or to come off as accusing you of anything. I was just commenting on the COI itself. The deletion and the COI seemed like separate issues. I'm sorry I failed to make that point.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by Mr. Nathwani See Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia and COIPOLITICALIt should be clear this guy has very little notability save, as a local political "Wonk" insider appointed, as place holder and now is hoping to use Wikipedia to help launch his political career. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above or review the article's history, you'll see that Jarvishunt (talk) created this article. Jarvishunt has been a Wikipedia contributor since 2008 and has no connection to the subject. A user that is likely the subject added additional content in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. You are correct that conduct is unacceptable. However, any content added in violation can be removed or revised to meet Wikipedia:Neutrality.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds like a meat puppet of NathwaniGeorge Orwell Peterson (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, false. I created the article, and I have no ties to the subject. Zero. Never have met him, couldn't pick him out of a police lineup, don't have an opinion of him, I'm not a Republican anyhow. But all that is irrelevant (especially my opinion of the subject). The reason I created this article is that I read in the Daily Herald that he was appointed to the Illinois Senate. I looked for a Wikipedia page on him and didn't see one, so I created one. Beyond that, however, what we're here to discuss isn't whether he's held two elected positions or not (that's irrelevant), or whether he's a political "wonk" (not even sure what that means -- are you trying to call him a political hack or an opportunist?). No, all we're here to discuss is: Is this subject notable by Wikipedia's well-established standards? The answer by a clear consensus that has been formed among Wikipedia users over the years is yes. Being in the upper legislature of a U.S. state automatically confers notability, regardless of the duration of that individual's time in office. Therefore, the subject of this article is notable. Jarvishunt (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jarvis Hunt is a local Wheaton/DuPage historical figure associated with Chicago Golf Club, so I assume you are a local guy, so you know, Mr. Nathwani is a local political Hack/Opportunist, regarding his Notability, this article is self-serving. But, if "the consensus" decides to keep this article, it should be very short, no-more than one paragraph. George Orwell Peterson (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia articles do not have to follow size restrictions. No matter what you think about the size of the person's notability claim, there is no such thing as "this person is only notable enough to have one short paragraph" vs. "that other person is notable enough to have a longer article" — if a person passes a notability criterion, then their article is always allowed to be as long or as short as the depth of reliable sourcing about them allows us to write. Notability criteria only govern whether a person qualifies to have an article at all or not, and once that test has been passed they do not impose any caps on how long their article is or isn't allowed to be. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability test for state legislators does not only attach to current incumbents, as was claimed by at least one person in the edit history — everybody who has ever served in the state legislature is always eligible for an article regardless of whether they're still in office today or not. The article does not read unduly promotionally in its current form, and any minor conflict of interest problems can be dealt with through the normal editing process — but concerning the fact that the subject has edited the article himself, the only edits I can actually see in the article history that are signed "Yadav15" just involve perfectly reasonable formatting corrections and a perfectly neutral statement of the name of his successor. Literally not a one of them actually lapses into the self-promotionalism issues that our COI rules actually concern themselves with — article subjects are not prevented from editing the article themselves to make purely factual edits that don't pose any WP:NPOV problems, the rule is just that they're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a personal PR platform or a venue for giving themselves the last word in an NPOV dispute. All in all, there's no serious reason why the article should be deleted at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What constitutes "Self-Promotion"? George Orwell Peterson (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the article in a tone that reads more like an advertisement (or a press release, or a campaign brochure) than like a neutral, objective encyclopedia article. That can and does happen on Wikipedia, but it hasn't happened in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep technically passes WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to HyperScan. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S+core

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

The article's topic, an architecture called S+core and processors based on it, does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. I could not find any significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources on Google. Of the 7 references in the article at the time of nomination:

#1is a primary source (the company website)
#2 is an incidental mention of S+core in some materials related to Linux kernel development, eg. notes written by SW developers for SW developers
#3 is an incidental mention of S+core in a news article about the Linux kernel
#4 is a blog, which isn't a reliable source per WP:BLOGS
#5 is an article about a HP calculator tear down that has an incidental mention of an unrelated Sunplus product
#6 is a primary source (a press release) about Sunplus, not S+core
#7 is a blog, see #4

99Electrons (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HyperScan. Seems to be only "major" product using this architecture and one simple sentence about S+core can be added to the Hardware specifications section. Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HyperScan per Pavlor's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musics (magazine)

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

Not enough sources exist. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree on deletion if we can find a source or two. It ran for four years and many important names in the relevant field were associated with it; this is the kind of article that typifies why I come to Wikipedia -- easily accessible information on something that i would otherwise be ignorant about. PaulCHebert (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: This is a valuable resource for Wikipedia to have but I understand the doubts re. lack of sources, and unlike some of the other rock-related articles of this era of which this might be said, this does not deal with a territory that The Times etc. picked up on after the fact. Are there any academic texts available which could back up the claims made here? It's conceivable. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand when someone ways this is a valuable resource. I can understand why you would say that if you knew something about the subject. But as editors, particularly in the context of deletion discussions, we're supposed to evaluate the article, not the subject. An article with no sources is worthless because there's no way to verify whether any of it is true. My approach would be the same if the article were called "George Washington". That's a valuable subject. But unsourced or poorly sourced? No. It has no value. If someone said, "But it's George Washington!" that would not persuade me. Some deprodders give the impression that if a Wikipedia article is deleted, it will lead to starvation or genocide. How many articles does Wikipedia have? Over five million?
Vmavanti (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per WP:NEXIST, the sources don't have to be cited in the article to be counted towards notability. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful delete - It's hard to find sources for this because the title ("Musics") is so generic. Searching using the long title I could not find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to back up the notability of this magazine and as such it fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As everyone else has already found, it's a hard title to search for. I have found several works citing articles in it - the book Rhythmus: Spuren eines Wechselspiels in Künsten und Wissenschaften [42], and papers 'MODULATEURS EN ANNEAU ET SAXOPHONE : LE DISPOSITIF D'ECRITURE MIXTE ET L'INTERPRETATION PARTICIPATIVE DANS L'ŒUVRE LE PATCH BIEN TEMPERE II' [43] and 'Indeterminacy, Free Improvisation, and the Mixed Avant-Garde:: Experimental Music in London, 1965–1975' [44]. Far Out Magazine has an article about the launch of the reprint (with some text based on this Wikipedia article??) [45], and a journal called Poetry Information had a piece about it after the first 3 issues had come out [46]. I tend to think that, if these are findable, there would be more, possibly not digitised, possibly not easily findable because of the rather generic title, but there is certainly a lot of content here that cannot currently be referenced to independent sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State of the article notwithstanding, there are clearly sources to be found. The magazine's short-form title does indeed make searches, shall we say, daunting. Nevertheless, there's some discussion of the magazine in this book by David Toop and Chris Atton's introduction to this Routledge-published work on alternative media. I strongly suspect that there are quite a few more sources out there; there was likely some discussion of the title in other music periodicals, but the issues of works like Ear, Coda, and Perpetual Frontier do not appear to be available (much less searchable!) online, although the infuriating tease of snippet view suggests that Coda, at least, had something to say about it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on one's stance towards doctoral dissertations as reliable sources, there's also some discussion of the magazine's influence in this thesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. The article needs significant improvement but the topic belongs in the encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable independent sources as listed above by Squeamish Ossifrage and RebeccaGreen demonstrates the magazine meets the WP notability criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County

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

I could only find this book source for significant coverage. The other sources that I found were routine local coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very Week Keep Just about gets over the line for notability based on the following sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6. The first book reference is easily sigcov, the others just rise above passing coverage since they discuss the Land Conservancy and its holdings and activities but in each case only barely. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Samie

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

This is more or less an Ad. Saqib (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability; looks like an autobio. samee converse 18:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:TOOSOON, no coverage in reliable sources found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Williams and the Hoodoo

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

Reads like an advert and looking at the sources I don't think the coverage they've received is in-depth enough to pass band notability criteria. SITH (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It indeed seems WP:ADVERT. The band's website lists apparently every bit of press they've received, some of which is referenced in the article. It might take a while to vet these to find those that are indeed notable. Most look small time or routine, but there may be a few good ones, especially among the niche Blues scene coverage. A couple of things need to be pointed out, though. The claim that they've been reviewed on NPR is disingenuous; WVPE.88.1 is merely the Elkhart, Wisconsin school system's radio station. Like many school radio programming, they partner with NPR content (as well as other public broadcast services), but emphatically is not the same as featured on NPR as a qualifying reliable source. Also, the reference from the AV Club is not that notable entity, but rather, a section of a local newspaper with the same name. Finally, to be on a first round ballot is for a Grammy is not a notable achievement. It is, in fact, nothing more than having one's entry accepted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A fair amount of local (Wisconin) coverage, but not quite enough to meet WP:MUSIC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I commented on this 2 weeks ago without voting, pending time to review all sources. There is some niche blues publication/website attention, but cumulatively they do not add up to enough significance to break out beyond run-of-the-mill type coverage. As pointed out above, other sources (most, in fact) are local but they, too, are fairly run-of-the-mill. Other facts in the article contain a fair amount of puffery for minor achievements. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Makin

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

Non-notable radio personality, fails GNG, no awards of note, refs are mostly mentions, seems like promo Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 11:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. AD ^Talk 07:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing (structure)

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

Lacks notability as an individual topic and would be sufficiently covered by adding in the material into the disambig page Organizing. In its current (and former state before I edited it), the article is basically a definition of "Organizing" (WP:NOTDICTIONARY), which can already be found on Wiktionary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see from the history that this was a couple of sentences split out from Organizing (management). It seems to be nothing more than a definition of one sense of organize. Given the parenthetical, I don't see any potential for other content. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote an unsourced dictdef, with a bizarre disambiguation. That said, there certainly must be some article on the profession of Marie Kondo. Professional organizing is very promotional (though I've removed the worst of it), and Orderliness is another bad dictdef. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, I would say that Professional organizing could cover Kondo's profession, however, imho KonMari method is the best spot for her philosophy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's some agreement in the discussion that this is a borderline case, but there's no clear consensus on whether the page meets policy even after two relists. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Maniam

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

I admit this is a borderline case, he gets a few mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV, and therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m gonna go with a Weak delete on this one. Trillfendi (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be sigcov 1 2. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the first is borderline non-trivial, the second is a promotional bio, and doesn't qualify for WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a borderline case, but I'd tend towards deleting as I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi, Just some background: this page was created during a Wikithon to improve Wikipedia coverage of Singapore Literature. See the liveblog pages here, and here. We understand the paucity of sources means it's a borderline case for deletion, but the Singapore literature scene is small (relative to other South-east Asian cities such as Manila, and definitely relative to other cultural capitals such as New York or Paris); I'd make the case that the "in-depth coverage" standards might bias Wikipedia coverage towards writers who live and work in communities with more developed literary infrastructure. We hope that the deletion notice be removed, and this article be flagged for WP:AFI instead. Cheers JayDubYewHo (talk) 05:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Glasman

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

there does not seem to be any formal position of leadership, except the rabbinical council of one australian state. the article is furthermore advocacy,with puffery and assumptions: a consistent stand; :forceful in his view... such language is always suspect--it is indicative of either unimaginative PR agent, or unwitting copying of their style. It contains local trivial about the football club he supports, It also brings in his very notable cousins and uncles, but I know that within at least some portions of the Jewish community, family does count for notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He held the position of the Australian rabbinic association. He has been a player in the Royal Commission about abuse, having taken the stand to question the rabbi's roles in the scandal. He has taken a stand against homophobia in the Orthodox community. This is not a puff piece (and I have no direct connection to the subject), it is an article about one of the most high profile rabbis in Australia Playlet (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how being "elected to be the president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand" is not a formal position of leadership. I also do not see puffery - it is a clear reflection of what this person said, and how he said it, as reported in media coverage of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and was in clear contrast to many other rabbis who gave evidence. I note that WP:RELPEOPLE says "In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they #2 "Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources." The Royal Commission was not a religious event, but it was an investigation into child abuse in religious organisations, in which the subject of this article played an important role - and a quite different role from some other rabbis. (I have no connection to the subject at all, but was aware of the media coverage of the royal commission.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be an important Jewish figure in terms of the Royal Commission, elected to be president as noted above.Berek (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me to be more than sufficient IRS to support WP:NEXIST to support GNG. Sufficient also to add further content to article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In my opinion Jewish newspapers are not sufficiently independent sources in these circumstances. I am surprised to see no notability guidelines for religious figures. ~~He did not give evidence at the royal commission into child sexual abuse - he was excused~~. He may have made comments to the media, but he was not a major player. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where holding a formal position of leadership makes a person notable. A quick google search does not reveal any coverage outside that already cited in the article. He may be well known within the Jewish community, but he is not well known outside the Jewish community. I don't see the article as being a puff piece. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did give evidence at the Royal Commission even though he was excused Playlet (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are notability guidelines for religious figures, which I linked to above. Glasman did give evidence at the Royal Commission, as reported in the sources. Also, SBS, ABC Radio National and the Herald Sun are not Jewish media. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your correction RebeccaGreen and for pointing me to WP:RELPEOPLE. I withdraw my mention about evidence at the royal commission. I maintain that there is no significant coverage of Glasman in in independent reliable sources; in the sources mentioned he is called on for comment only, or the evidence he gave at the royal commission is covered. In relation to WP:RELPEOPLE, the royal commission was not a religious event and it was also not exclusively an enquiry into religious institutions, among other institutions, Surf lifesaving Australia, the Australian Defence Force and Scouts were in the crosshairs; the major media coverage related to the Catholic and Anglican churches. I think people like Glasman deserve a page, but sadly I don't see that meets the notability criteria. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that WP:RELPEOPLE is not a policy or guideline, but appears in an essay on WikiProject Religion. Regardless of what either of us think it is not binding. 8==8 Boneso (gnaw) 21:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nominator. I am also disturbed by the PR-type language here and the trivial details. The main argument for notability boils down to his outspokenness on various issues, but the article has a SYNTH feel to it, like the page creator was digging up every mention in a newspaper to build an article. Aside from his views, he doesn't stand out as notable. Yoninah (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. I was going to say "delete" until I read the claim "inaugural president of the new Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand". If that organisation is really the peak body of Rabbis in two countries then 1) it is worthy of an article and 2) so are its presidents (but not most other members). The article still needs a lot of work. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Definitely passes GNG, without a doubt. I don't see any specific guidelines that he fits into but regardless, he is notable. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject person is the head of the Rabbinical Council of Australia and New Zealand (see here), which should be trivially considered a "notable organization." Makes the cut. -The Gnome (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I agree with the nominator that the text currently contains a lot of fat, e.g. "He has been very outspoken about his desire to accept LGBT Jews into the Orthodox community," which is an arbitrary and significant amplification of what the cited source states. -The Gnome (talk)

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. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that it meets WP:GEOLAND. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mocho Mountains

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

Sole source is a dictionary. Not sure it passes our notability guidelines for geographic features. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 06:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 06:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy keep per WP:GEOLAND, a quick web search brought up a number of sources, I have added two quickly to the article. SportingFlyer talk 07:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EASY KEEP per WP:GEOLAND FOARP (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, WP:GEOPURP (source:[47])--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GEO, per above, someone close this ... please ... quick. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cadu Salles

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

Article unsourced. A search for sources indicates that the subject is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete → WP:NOTRESUME. Trillfendi (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources is the subjects website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 20:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda S. Reeves

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Five of the sources in the article are primary, which do not qualify notability, and the remaining two do not consist of significant coverage:

[48] – Consists of five very short sentences about the subject.
[49] – has a name check and three short sentences.

Searches for independent, reliable sources are providing no better to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the fact that community consensus is clear that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG, and that various church publications/PR references do not count toward notability (e.g. Church Newsroom, lds.org, Liahona, see WP:IIS) it's remarkable that this subject doesn't even get much coverage in church sources. One of the church sources cited in the article does not even mention the subject at all. Coverage in secondary sources is not significant, being routine announcements, quotes, and reprints of official church PR blurbs and press releases (this is obvious when the newspaper database also contains the church press releases for comparison). It's not significant coverage of this subject in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. The subject's corporate bio, which is what this article is, can be found at the LDS website without Wikipedia's help. Bakazaka (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City of Cities

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

Was originally a redirect to Paris, converted into a well-meaning but unsourced DAB. Google Search gives results for the Ruhr region, Sydney, Guangzhou, Santiago de Chile, etc. I'm not sure anything can be done for this, perhaps a soft-redirect to Wiktionary for the definition "a large city"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to just delete it. I'm not sure the soft redirect makes sense. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - considering the current state and any scope for improvement, I don't see any benefit to keep seeing as it gives zero information about what a "city of cities" may actually mean, nor links to anything substansive. At best, it may become an article offering a vague yet questionable defintion of what some may think it means; even if it adapts to that, we already have wiktionary. A redirect anywhere would be reliant upon a verifiable source. I think just deleting is best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a fairly common phrase that can be applied to just about any city. The first five of the Google Books results linked above show me books about Sydney, London, Milan, Christchurch and New York, and I'm not quite sure what to make of the sixth. I think readers would be better served by having nothing under this title than a mish-mash of cities to which this name has been applied. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Just like last time around... Sandstein 09:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to faint passing mentions. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We need Spanish language input here. I see two ES-language sources which may indicate sigcov 1 2. There may be others. EDIT: and as noted in the previous delete discussions, no, something is not just a primary source because it is published by a publisher related to the Mormons. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out in the previous discussion we have sources such as the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, edited by notable academics. To exclude it based on who the publishing company it was published by was is to create a very broad and troubling precedent for exclusion of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? One source being existent does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. Furthermore, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was only two months ago, why has a new AFD been opened so quickly? FOARP (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is plenty of time to allow for notability to be demonstrated, such as by adding sources to the article. However, if said sources don't exist, the subject is non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two Spanish language books that FOARP found are barely more than passing mentions. A google of News and Books isn't turning up much else. So, we just have the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History—one source, possibly not significant and/or independent. If there isn't significant coverage beyond LDS-published sources, that's a good sign that he's not notable. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument last time, and I'm not seeing any new arguments to sway me otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia, but your !vote in the last AfD was largely based upon this premise. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no presumed notability for any subject, with the possible exception of species with an accepted taxonomy. The point has to do with which subjects have encyclopedic value. The problem with religious subjects is that Southern Baptists don't write about Hare Krishnas, the Hindus don't write about Assyrian Orthodox, Presbyterians don't write about Jehovah's Witnesses, and general secular media/academia doesn't cover any of it (unless there's some juicy scandal involved.) That does not make the subjects un-encyclopedic, in this case it is a subject which demonstrably influenced the history of the faith millions and millions of people adhere to. Therefore sometimes we need to use the best sources available, which are going to be published by the LDS/Presbyterians/Jehovah's Witnesses/Hare Krishnas. There's no indication in this particular instance it was influenced by the subject, but of course healthy skepticism needs to be applied here regarding NPOV because the subject and publisher belong to the same religious sect. So if the source says "This person was a saint with no faults, and he cured cancer in many" then it has no place here, but biographical facts, and details regarding their influence within the faith can and should be used. It is my opinion and !vote therefore that the encyclopedia would be poorer without this topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum of what is required to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These necessary sources appear to be nonexistent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact I don't see an issue with the sources presented in the article per above, there's [50], [51]. I realize there is disagreement here regarding what constitutes "independent", but my reading of our current policy regarding independent sources would indicate to me that these sources are potentially (likely) biased, but are independent as there's no evidence Abrea has any editorial oversight or influence on these publications. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm really confused. This is clearly a debate without a consensus. All the sources have been found and there's good faith disagreement about their value and applicability. It was rightly and accurately closed as no consensus after 14 days of discussion, and then that close was taken to DRV and summarily overturned as a BADNAC, even though that's exactly the outcome envisaged in WP:RELIST. If it had been allowed to stay at DRV, then I would have expected a bit of a waggy finger at the closer for their generic closing statement and failure to engage on their talk page, but a resounding endorse for their decision. Why are we here?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to go off-topic making this a DRV2, so this will be short. I feel that 1) a total of five users participating is rather minimal, along with 2) the "tied" nature of !votes herein, warranted a second relist, among other reasons, such as the closer ignoring my two requests for discussion regarding the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this deserved a re-list because a major part of the discussion took place immediately before "closing time", and I thought it would be better to give other editors an opportunity to react to that discussion, and that while consensus may not develop it certainly has a chance to. I agree with NA1000 and the DelRev reviewer that WP:BADNAC applies by criteria #2 and 3. #2 in that the positions currently are far apart, and #3 in that his AfD record shows a high number of "kept" nominations. This is not meant to belittle the original closer, or that they did anything "wrong". I merely am of the opinion, and I think NA1000 agrees, that relisting in this instance is the better option. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Wikipedians are a secular bunch and most are uninterested in religious topics, but I suppose there could plausibly be a sudden rush of new participants. I hope that's the outcome. If it isn't, I feel that it would be very inappropriate to relist again.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a third relist would be inappropriate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually two comments about 78.26's point above. First, academics and journalists write about faiths other than their own all the time, and if anything smaller denominations and sects (even, say, the Gülen movement or Heaven's Gate) are overrepresented in academic and popular literature. Second, the official LDS sources may be reliable for some information on the subject, and they are reliable indicators of the church's position on something. But they are not independent of the church, as the church has a vested interest in building up the name and reputation of people whom it is presenting as messengers of doctrine and teaching handed down from the apostles. The subject doesn't have to walk over and influence the PR writer in her cubicle. If both are being directed by the same organization, then the PR writer's coverage of the subject is not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:BEFORE search in Spanish brought up almost nothing, and nothing of any sourceable notes. The LDS sources in the article are functionally WP:PRIMARY, and the secondary source here [52] isn't WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable film that does continues to not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. Source searches have provided no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about this film, nor any reviews in said required sources. The sole keep !vote in the previous AfD discussion stated, "looks like there are more Indian sources to add, article is not unduly promotional." However, in a later comment, the user then stated, "... so, I was wrong, it doesn't look like it's covered more in Indian sources after all." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--> NFILM has technically boiled down to allotting an article for every film that has got 2 or more reviews across reliable source(s). I do not personally agree with this interpretation and IMHO, we are not competing with IMDB. But that's a story for another day and for now, I will apply the same standards to this film. Running an online-search for sources, we cannot lay our hands on anything. But the broader question is whether is it realistic to expect online reviews of a 92' film or to assume that all Tamil dailies of 92 have been digitized or rational to search for coverage in net-era-publications ( how many films produced this year (with a plethora of hype) will be any mentioned across RS(s) 20 years later?). The film starred two legendary actors and the music was directed by a highly acclaimed artist. In light of that, it's plainly crazy to assume that such a film vanished without making any buzz; flop or not. Systemic Bias and all that.∯WBG^converse 17:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to create a redirect per the previous AFD, they're more than welcome to, but consensus in this discussion is to delete. clpo13_(talk) 20:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia P. Pinegar

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources has only provided fleeting passing mentions and name checks. The primary sources in the article do not qualify notability, and arguments for article retention in the previous AfD discussion were based upon personal opinion, rather than Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple secondary sources have been identified. If it is not kept, it should be merged with the article on her husband, not deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do those sources provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? Sources being identified does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the secondary sources aren't independent and only passing mentions come up in ProQuest. We just don't have a notability policy specific to religious figures or for schools less notable than universities. originalmess^{how u doin that busta rhyme?} 18:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Church sources (Ensign, lds.org, etc) are not independent (see WP:IIS) and therefore not usable for establishing notability. Only additional source suggested in previous AfD was...another official LDS source, with a double conflict of interest as a student newspaper covering an alumna. Search does not find significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of this subject, just routine coverage of church announcements/PR. Coverage outside the church of "Patricia Pinegar" seems to be of a different person with the same name in a different US state. Just being able to construct sentences from passing mentions and PR quotes does not consecrate the source material as significant coverage, so subject does not pass WP:GNG. Readers can find official LDS corporate bios and PR blurbs without Wikipedia's help. Bakazaka (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus. No prejudice on renomination. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 08:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Village

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

Fails WP:NBUILD; appears to be a run-of-the-mill commercial complex of no historic, architectural, or sociological note. Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article already has reliable sources coverage and is a significant structure in its locale. Most buildings are run of the mill to some extent but if they have received reliable sources coverage they are usually included and this structure is significant enough to be notable and should be kept, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the necessary depth of coverage. The only sources are local newspaper articles discussing routine zoning-type agenda items before the planning commission and city council, which one would expect from any commercial development in Los Angeles County given the way its local government bureaucracy works. I don't see this as sufficient to demonstrate an encyclopedic level of notability. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a neighborhood in Manhattan Beach, not simply a commercial mall. It was the last empty-space neighborhood to be developed in the city. Go here for articles. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1985 the area got much newspaper space when methane gas was discovered leaking there. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article should be kept thanks to RebeccaGreen's addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolph Marks

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

Both offline and online source searches (WorldCat, Scholar, Books, Google) reveal a few passing mentions but nothing which would satisfy notability guidelines for creative professionals or people in general. User:Jmabel - courtesy ping for deprod. SITH (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on the article talk page, I realize we are short on independent documentation of notability here, but that's not uncommon for people who wrote almost entirely in Yiddish, especially if virtually all writing about them was in Yiddish. Few, if any, Yiddish-language newspapers can be found online; there are not all that many books about Yiddish-language performing in any language other than Yiddish, and those in Yiddish are not well catalogued.

Jacob Adler, the one citation I have here, was by any standard among the half-dozen most important actors in the history of Yiddish theater. Many would account him the most important. I'm pretty comfortable saying that if he considered Marks worth singling out for mention in his memoir as someone who had a brief but notable career in the 1890s, he knew whereof he spoke. - Jmabel | Talk 17:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNG is very clear we need multiple sources, one source is never enough. One can not argue that sources might exist, one needs to demonstrate what these sources are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider that to be the case in reality. One really reliable source in a place with worldwide coverage is sufficient. We have , for example, kept thousands of bio articles on account of their being covered as a NYT editorial obit. The GNG is a summary, and needs to be interpreted according to reason.

Keep until a search for proper sources can be made by someone competent to do so. There were in that period 4 (or perhaps 5 )Yiddish language daily newspapers in NYC, all of which covered the Yiddish theater extensively. There are additionally many books available, I think mostly in Yiddish. You're not going to find this in Gbooks or in any of the newspaper indexes. At the very least, draftify, I'm asking one or two of the people I know. . DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, I could go with draftify, sure. SITH (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is actually a fair amount in the digitised papers in Newspapers.com. The Philadelphia Inquirer called him a "well known and clever comedian" when the United Hebrew Opera Co appeared there in 1893 [53]; a review in the Philadelphia Times said he deserved the applause he received [54], and a review in the The Philadelphia Inquirer said there was "a vein of clever comedy throughout the piece, the chief promoter of which was Rudolph Marks" [55]. In the same year a paper called Der Waechter ran a contest for the most popular young actor (reported in The World, New York) [56], which was narrowed down to Marks and another, but Marks went to court saying his name and photo could not be used (this report describes him as an actor at the Thalia Theater and law student at the University of the City of New York). By 1900, Marks was acting as counsel for theater managers against the newly formed Hebrew Actors' Union [57], [58]. In 1901, there were efforts to start a Yiddish theater in Chicago, and there was a performance of a play called The Bowery Tramp by "a New York lawyer, Rudolph Marks, who was formerly a Yiddish actor" [59] In 1904, there are small mentions of him as a Chicago lawyer "who has made a specialty of theatrical law" [60], and in 1907 as a lawyer of 320 Broadway (again engaged by theater managers) [61]. A 1903 report of a court case describes him as "better known as a writer of Yiddish plays and as an actor of Shakepearean parts in the Bowery theaters than as a lawyer" [62]. His plays were performed in Connecticut in 1911 ("the great comedy success Chaim in America") [63] and Kentucky in 1912 (The Shop Girl) [64]. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle had an obituary when he died in 1930 aged 63 [65] - apparently his full name was Rudolph Marks Rodkinson; he was born in Odessa, went to England aged 15 and appeared on the stage there, then arrived in New York aged 19. He worked as a lawyer for 32 years, and had a son and two daughters. Plenty of coverage even without access to sources in Yiddish. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the references I found, plus some information and quotes, so the article now has more than just one sentence. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rebecca's expansion seems sufficient to confirm the subject's notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:HEY, Kudos to the indefatigable Rebecca Green.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advocis

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

No reliable sources covering it in depth, fails WP:GNG. Most sources covering it are just repeats of press releases made by Advocis itself. The article claims that Advocis is a self regulatory agency for insurance agents, yet this is clearly false as Advocis is a lobbying organization split from IIROC's predecessor as it would be a conflict of interest for a lobbying organization to also be a regulatory organization. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some sources from The Globe and Mail and the CBC, although I'm undecided if they push the page past WP:CORPDEPTH. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The Globe and Mail article is about the use of artificial intelligence for financial planning as discussed in a symposium held by Advocis, but this CBC report and this one place the association front and center at the need for regulating the industry. In any case, this is an association grouping some twelve thousand professionals in the finance and investment sector, a significant lobbying entity and it's not so easy to ignore it. -The Gnome (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found some other minor coverage mentioning the group's advocacy efforts [[66]][[67]] (the latter is more a rehash of a press release), but no in-depth profile that would put them into my weak keep territory. For example, the only organization history I could find is a letter they sent to the Canadian Department of Finance [[68]]. This doesn't quite meet WP:GNG for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film). Sandstein 09:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Prince

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

This is an article about a movie character. It's been deleted twice, and recreated with a thin claim to notability, essentially that this character was featured in UGO Networks "Best Second-in-commands." The other references are about Ben Foster's portrayal of the character, not the character per se. Most of this article is trivia (e.g., the gear the character uses, and clothing), and as such belongs in a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. There's nothing here to support WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Three-Ten to Yuma.--73.137.178.251 (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Three-Ten to Yuma as suggested above. --Lockley (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced material to 3:10 to Yuma (2007 film) as a majority of the article is about Foster's portrayal of the character, and then redirect to Three-Ten to Yuma, as that is the article on the original book. Aoba47 (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battalion 609

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

Unsure this passes WP:NFILM. First and last references are the only coverage beyond a mere cast list and release date, sources 2, 5 and 8 are duplicates of source 9. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. SITH (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @StraussInTheHouse: New references have been added and article should not be deleted as its an upcoming film based on Indo-Pakistani war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilNeil (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speculating anything. Everything has been cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FossilNeil (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 08:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I internally debated keeping as a DAB page per discussion, but that would require a complete re-write, and frankly anyone can do that just as easily after a delete, maybe even easier. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentate

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

A dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and a pretty dubious one too, tagged as unsourced (WP:V) since 2007. If we strip out all the unsourced and/or dicdef content, there's nothing left, and no obvious redirect target comes to mind. (No, Ruler isn't it.) Sandstein 23:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as the article is mostly just definition and I don't see how it could be made encyclopedic. Potential redirect targets might be Absolute monarchy or Dictator, but the match is imprecise. Cnilep (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak convert to a dab page. In addition to the head of the Shriners, there's also the three-time winner of the Welsh Champion Hurdle and an alternate name for a Power in Christian angelology#Choirs in medieval theology. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's ... possible, I guess? But these are all very obscure and/or minor topics, and none of them has an article. I'm not sure whether that warrants a dab page. But I'm ok with one being created after deletion. Sandstein 21:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak disambiguate per Clarityfiend, but has anyone actually checked online sources to ensure that this is not an encyclopedic and notable subject? No one here seems to have done WP:BEFORE. I certainly haven't. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

potential article. Draftify. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE prr WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is a common English noun, OED: "A monarch, prince, ruler, esp. an autocratic one. Also: a powerful or influential person; a magnate." However unlike such terms as monarch, tyrant , dictator, autocracy, theocracy , etc., no body of political science literature explores or employs this as a term of art. A "potentate" is simply one of the many English words for "ruler" or "powerful man." The usage by the Shriners can be mentioned on the Shriner's page. I really don't see the need for a dab page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about that dab for the Shriners annd the racehorse (I had missed the racehorse). User:Clarityfiend can you explain the angel thing? I'm not seeing it. But the racehorse doesn't look all that significant and discussing the Shriner's potentate on the Shriner's page looks sufficient to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ambrose (2nd on the list) uses the term. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify per Clarityfiend. Since we do have encyclopedic topics called "potentate", we should have a DAB page. Obviously, a wiktionary link would be included if people just want a dicdef. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The racehorse appears on the list of single racetrack; the angel reference is arcane and obscure, but I suppose a Dab is harmless, because Shriner's title.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's not necessary to keep this page's history, given its WP:DICDEF issue, and the creation of a DAB page can happen outside of AfD. Deletion solves the current issue, clarifies that a DICDEF version of the page is not appropriate, and clears the path for future development as something else. Bakazaka (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, specifically Wiki is not a dictionary FOARP (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Girl

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

WP:NSONGS You know the drill. Unnotable song by Jamie Foxx ft. Drake, Kanye West, and The-Dream. No reliable sources found for it. Please don’t tell me you think peaking at 92 is notability because clearly it’s not. Delete or redirect to Intuition. Trillfendi (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only passing mentions found in RS. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and not notable, although a redirect to Intuition for the single release is acceptable. KokoPhantom (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful Tax Competition: An Emerging Global Issue

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

Ideally merged with tax competition. The article does not show that the report is particularly notable to warrant an article. If notability for the report may be demonstrated, then the article can be kept. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Trillfendi (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with tax competition per nom GirthSummit _(blether) 02:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources here--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three of the first four hits from the Google Scholar search linked by Path slopu above (I didn't need to look any further) are academic papers specifically about this report, rather than the general topic of tax competition: [69], [70], [71], with the final one being a retrospective paper written after ten years, so long-term impact is demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - since the scholar search shows this passes the ridiculously low bar of WP:NBOOK (which creates an open avenue for POV articles).Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Reliable multicast. Sandstein 09:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual synchrony

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is mostly original research. The problems raised eleven years ago at the last AFD persist: the term is largely confined to Birman's work and doesn't seem to have entered into the academic mainstream. This page is Birman's personal essay, and it appears that that is all it will ever amount to, and unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a collection of essays. SITH (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what the basic issue is here. Your proposal is dominated by personal-attack language, which somewhat obscures the real question. Are you simply saying “Wikipedia shouldn’t have a separate article on this topic”, or that “this content should be merged into some other primary article with broader coverage”?

As to the facts, Google scholar lists 2,740 articles with some mention of the two-word phrase “virtual synchrony” (a few dozen of which are by me or my students). The great majority were written by authors unrelated to me or my research group, and some use the term in their title or abstract.

The model played (and still plays) a legitimate role, yielded a CORBA standard. It was the first (and is still the primary) self-management model for fault tolerance services that employ a dynamically adaptive group structure, where processes join and leave while updates are underway. Recent textbooks continue to discuss it.

Among contemporary, widely used systems, ZooKeeper employs a form of virtual synchrony. That tool is the majority solution for cloud management and it plays a key role in Apache HDFS, Hadoop, Kafka, and other major components of the Apache cloud infrastructure. The French air traffic control system bases its correctness proof on virtual synchrony, and has been in continuous use since 1995. It is “why you are safe” when you use a self-driving car that depends on ZooKeeper, or fly into French-managed airspace. The NYSE depended upon virtual synchrony for a ten year period from 1995 to 2005, enabling it to self heal when disrupted by network component failures.

What I think could be discussed would be a merge of this material into the article on reliable multicast. It would make sense to explore such a merge, and doing so wouldn’t leave a hole in the Wikipedia “knowledge base”, whereas simply deleting the page would create a gap. The question is: who would carry this task out? Clearly, not me.

I would easily be able to suggest domain experts, but I don’t know if any are Wikipedia editors.

Ken Birman (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ken Birman, sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I've had a lot on my plate. While I agree that my nomination may have been worded somewhat tersely (for which I apologise, I tend to truncate what I say to save time), I adamantly disagree that I violated the policy to which you refer (no personal attacks). If I'd have said "your research is all lies" or "you're a liar", that would be a personal attack. My nomination is in no way intended to cast a shadow on your academic record (I'm some random pleb on the Internet and you're a Professor at Cornell, I don't think anyone's disputing that you know more about the topic you're writing about than I do), I am merely pointing out that the vast majority of the sources cited are written by you. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that we don't publish original research. The article was created by a user whose username is also the attribution given to the sources which cover the term the most. That is the policy upon which I was basing my argument. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: and I would be more than happy to help facilitate a merge to the article you've highlighted. SITH (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might as well ping @Ken Birman: to keep the discussion rolling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SITH apology accepted. I’m fine with you deleting the page and tackling this merge. Let me know when you’ve made your edit and I’ll take a look. I don’t get notifications instantly on Wikipedia... email me (ken@cs.cornell.edu) if a question arises.

You should probably cite the Derecho paper (accepted by ACM Transactions on Computing Systems, should appear soon) at the same time. Idit Keidar has a theoretical analysis of solutions to the reliable multicast problem (aka State machine replication, Paxos) and gives theoretical lower bounds (a way to identify the best possible protocols is to characterize the minimum amount of information or messages tha must be exchanged).

Derecho, which uses virtual synchrony and runs on RDMA (when the hardware isn’t available it just switches to TCP), is the first solution to achieve this lower bound and in that sense, is the ultimate protocol in this space. No future protocol could outperform it other than through clever use of the hardware or some other engineering innovation: it simply isn’t possible to reduce the message costs. As such there are several pages that probably should cite this paper. I was planning to just add it to the long lists of cited works on those once the TOCS citation is in a final state (lacks page numbers and an exact date right this second). Ken Birman (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I'm fine with implementing the merge and redirect per Ken Birman's directions above (although I can't promise I'll do it immediately), so I move to close as merge. SITH (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Imray

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as not played professional. Only a trial with Hibs and never started for the Wellington Phoenix. Team Wellington doesn't play in a professional league. Not enough for WP:GNG.

Edit as I see this is third nominations, I'm surprised it was kept in the previous ones but note both where no concensus. Really all the articles are the same thing about his trial and he hasn't gone on to do anything else and/or play professional. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 01:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as I can not find him going onto the field for a pro team. WP:GNG is harder. But if you don't reach football notability, you can't reach general notability for your football. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I cannot find reliable coverage which I am going to agree with these two, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 09:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I wasn't convinced about the GNG arguments at the last AFD and I'm still not. Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Sandstein 09:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Youth (Australia)

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

This may be a hoax, but is certainly not a notable political party. The only independent source appears to make no reference to the organisation. Grahame (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC's item does mention his claim to the party's existence, but there is no evidence that they fact-checked this.--Grahame (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Find bruce (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Find bruce (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete organisation is not notable per WP:ORG, not mentioned in any reliable source, the only external link is primarily concerned with opinions about pill testing and mentions the organistion only peripherally. The same editor also created an article on the organisation's "Counsel" Samraat Joshua Grewal, which is also nominated for deletion. Find bruce (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I can't find anything beyond passing mention of the Christian Democratic Party's youth wing, although it's hard to tell because the name is shared with many other similar organizations. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Most of the references are directly from the Christian Youth source, which would fail WP:RS. If there is any relevant information that can be added as a Youth section of Christian Democratic Party article, that should be done. Bkissin (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youth wing of a minor party founded a few short months ago that has received no attention. Perhaps worthy of a sentence or two in the main CDP article. Frickeg (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge if any IRS can be found) to Christian Democratic Party of Australia. Not notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as consensus currently appears to be that the "organisation" is not notable, can someone please explain to me how & why redirecting this article would benefit wikipedia.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bidji

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

I found no significant coverage and the article is unreferenced. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Kip McKean#International Christian Church. I am ignoring the SPAs !votes. Nevertheless, there seems to be consensus that this should be deleted. I am leaving a redirect as this might be a possible search term. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Church

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominate the page for deletion, and give the following reason: No academic supporting sources to establish page need. Historically been a battle ground among former and current members using exclusively primary sources. (WP:DEL1, WP:DEL6, WP:DEL7, WP:DEL8, WP:DEL14) Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second the deletion. No scholarly articles or evidence to call the information. Chrisgreen160 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Chrisgreen160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Please delete the page. This page has weak sources and it's not very informative. One of the sources seems to have been taken down or archived. Please remove it. Marleydepew (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC) — Marleydepew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This is a notable group with a founder who has his own page. I am sure reliable sources will soon turn up as they did with McKeans previous church. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JB , That's just the thing: of the 21 citations the founder has, only 4 or 5 are legitimate non-self-sourced. His former church is the same story, only 6-7 legitimate citations out of the nearly 100-self-sourced. If the ICC after 12 years was worthy of an academic page, it would have more than 1 valid citation. Until that day, deletion is the only reasonable option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachbricewilliams28 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems fairly straightforward. This topic lacks meaningful credible insight. Ronald C Harding 00:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronaldcharding (talk • contribs)

You guys may want to go and read WP:MEAT before continuing, as two of these editors have no other contributions outside of this topic and the other two are members of the church, as per the talk pages of the founder and his church being discussed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jb, no one is sock puppet in here, and anyone who knows you, knows the reason why you want this page to remain. Please don't sit there and pretend like it is academic. This page has existed for half the time the church has, and there is only one academic source. Affiliation can be an issue, but not in all cases ( hence why I've never cared about your Icoc editing history.) Either someone needs to come up with some real citations, or the page has to go. Since there are no existing academic sources on this church, this isn't about sentiment, it's about the standards at Wiki. This page doesn't cut it. I just has no merit. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)×[reply]

Comment I've been involved disputes on this page before; note that this is not the somewhat-related group International Churches of Christ. The real argument for deletion seems to be that certain people affiliated with the church don't like this article. Regarding the 5 DEL criteria: DEL1 (meets CSD) doesn't seem to apply at all, and DEL14 (unsuitable for an encyclopedia) clearly isn't met as articles describing churches are appropriate content for an encyclopedia. DEL6 and DEL7 (lack of reliable sources) and DEL8 (notability) may apply; the existing sourcing suggests that a redirect to Kip McKean may be appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it's not that some don't "like" the article. It's that when the article was at it's HIGHEST QUALITY IN MAY, it was modeled after the ICOC page yet somehow, despite the presumed accuracy of the sources, wikiGnomes still rejected the page with no objection to the Icoc page's 80+ selfsourced links. Same for the Kip McKean page; it is 95% self sourced. If a pile of academic sources existed or comes about, this page could be revived. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)––[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of suspicions of meatpuppetry involved in this AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CoolSkittle (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting is appreciated however the WP:Meat was already cleared as "unrelated" by Bbb23. The decision seems beyond obvious. I'm not certain why the delay. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but I see no evidence that there is no concern over meatpuppetry JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed in another page; hence why no one is pushing it.Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input by established editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My BEFORE isn't turning up any independent significant coverage. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The fact that the instigator of that group "has his own page" is not an argument for keeping the article; in fact, it's completely irrelevant. If there were sources testifying to the subject's independent notability we'd have found them by now. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a Redirect to Kip McKean#International Christian Church, not enough useable sources for a standalone but may be a wikireader searchterm. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on the keep/delete spectrum, but I'm very confused by the cast of characters here. There's some obvious socking going on (for which I've opened an SPI), but beyond that, I noticed that User:Ronaldcharding stated in the comment to this edit that he was Mr. McKean's personal assistant. The WP:UPE aspect aside, I'm confused why somebody who is associated with the church is arguing for it to be deleted. That's backwards of how these spamfests usually work. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diána Mészáros

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

GNG / NMODEL Simply put, IMDb and FMD are not reliable sources for notability. And I’ve found absolutely no reliable sources, or really any sources at all. Trillfendi (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing that rises to the levle of a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concede that by current ENG WP standards this is not a notable subject. (I was the page creator).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kred Influence Measurement

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

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable website / service. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB; significant RS coverage not found. Not independently notable of PeopleBrowsr, where the service is briefly mentioned. Has been edited by a variety of SPAs to add back promotional information, so I'm proposing that the name be salted or ECP protected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I support the deletion. Tried to find authoritative resources, but couldn't find any. There were some claims on notability (such as an Alexa rank) that were low quality, but I couldn't verify them with current information (likely outdated). Promotional information keeps getting added back. No authoritative sources on the blockchain claims other than some crypto blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citrivescence (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TasteDive

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

Web recommendation engine that fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A Google search didn't turn up any acceptable sources. Citrivescence (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found sources under its original name - Book Riot, CNET, Defining Identity and the Changing Scope of Culture in the Digital Age, India Times, The Next Web, and Expert Internet Searching: Fifth edition. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of these sources (CNET and The Next Web) are already in the article.SL93 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unfamiliar with The Next Web and so did not count that as a reliable source. However, I did not search under the former name and the sources you found do demonstrate notability. I will withdraw the nomination. Citrivescence (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:GNG and Verifiability. (Sources: [72], [73], [74], [75]).--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 02:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 03:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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