Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 April >

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 no consensus. Anyone who feels a redirect is a good compromise can simply be bold and do it outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair

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

Award with very little notability, receives little to no attention. Prod removed with a claim of what is basically inherited notability (the awards in total are notable, so every individual award is notable). Searching for sources is hampered by the fact that the award is not called the "Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair", but for "Achievement in Hair", but even so there is very little to be found from independent sources, apart from some sources which list this one without further comment (i.e. "passing mentions"). 40 Google hits[1], two passing Google News mentions[2].

Note that, according to the main article, "The Canadian Screen Awards has roughly 130 categories in total. ", so it is not surprising that some will not be really notable: it looks as if of the 100 TV categories, about 14 have a separate article at the moment. So this is not a deletion that will break some complete series. Fram (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories, such as the CSAs or the Oscars, it is not useful to pick and choose that some categories are notable while some categories are not. It's simply a question of what's the best method of organizing information about the overall awards program for maximum benefit to the reader: for multi-category awards, the answer to that has always been that there should be a by-year article for each year that the awards are presented, paired with by-category articles that track the specific history of each category across the years.
Each individual category is not a standalone thing that has to demonstrate its own standalone notability by showing sources that uniquely single it out as its own subject of its own dedicated attention — it's simply a component part of a notable thing that is far, far too large to simply be handled all in just one megalong article, so each category gets chunked out for size management purposes regardless of whether it has its own dedicated category-specific sources or not. If the Canadian Screen Awards are notable as a whole, which they are, and this category is verifiable as being part of them, which it is, then its results have to be tracked somewhere — and Wikipedia's practice has always been to cover awards programs like this by having by-ceremony articles that list the categories that were presented that year, cross-referenced with by-category articles that list the results in that specific category across the years, and not getting into arguments about whether some categories were "more notable" than others. It's like the notability principle that applies to telephone area codes: because the overall system is notable, and Wikipedia's role is to serve as a complete reference for notable things, Wikipedia just keeps an article about each area code as a matter of course, and does not attempt to measure or debate whether each individual code independently clears GNG as a topic independently of the overall system, simply because the overall system is far, far too large to cover every aspect of it in a single merged megalong article.
It is true that the CSA television categories don't all have their own category articles — note, however, that the film categories do all have their own category articles, and this is a film category — but the reason is not that they've been deemed non-notable, it's that people haven't been doing the work. Even before the Genie-Gemini merger, the people who started our Gemini articles didn't actually do a very good job with them, and just picked a small non-representative handful of categories to actually list in the articles — not because the articles are supposed to just highlight a few categories to the exclusion of others, but because those page creators were lazy and didn't finish the job. (It's only been within the past three or four years that I've even got all the Genie articles fully fleshed out, instead of just going "acting categories, best director, best picture, one completely random and not actually consistent from year to year craft category, the end", either.) Our Genie+Gemini=CSA content is actually still very incomplete even now, because I'm the only person who's actually making any genuinely serious effort to fix most of it — but it's not that some categories are notable and others aren't, it's that people aren't stepping in to help me do the research work needed to actually get the missing categories in place, which means I'm tackling all the deficiencies all by myself. So no, the lack of some television category articles is not proof that we pick and choose "notable" and "non-notable" categories under the auspices of a notable overall awards program — it's not a series that's been deliberately filtered for comparative notability contests, it's a series that is meant to be complete in principle, and people just aren't doing the damn work. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That people have not being doing the work for a topic like this is often an indication that things aren't as notable and important as you may think they are. A current media-related article from an English speaking country is normally the first thing editors pick up. But some of these awards are only important for the incrowsd, it seems, and no one outside really cares. These awards are less notable than e.g. the Oscars, and it isn't because we try to be complete there that this applies to all awards (a claim I seriously doubt, some awards just scrape by on notability for a single article and will never warrant a full series). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that will convince many people, how we treat telephone codes can be disputed as well but is hardly a reason to keep or delete this article. The other argument, that we need to split this out because otherwise we would have a way too long article, is also nonsense. We always choose what to include and what not, and there is no need to e.g. include the list of nominees for a non notable award into a larger article. An article on the 2018 or 2019 awards can easily list the winner of the "achievement in hair" award without any need for a split. In fact, it already does, 7th Canadian Screen Awards has the exact same information as the article up for deletion, so that's basically another argument to delete this one. Fram (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort — so people not doing the work doesn't speak to notability nearly as much as it speaks to age. Genuinely notable topics that are older, and require digging into newspaper databases or microfilms to reference properly, often have much less work put into them by far fewer people than current pop culture topics do — that's not proof that older topics are inherently less notable, it just proves that most Wikipedians are lazy.
And no, the fact that the information is also present in the by-year article is not an argument against having a by-category article at all, because that's always true of every category presented by any multicategory awards program, including the Oscars and the BAFTAs and the Junos and the Grammys: by definition, the information is always also cross-referenced with by-year articles that place the same information in a different context. So that's not a reason to single this category out for different treatment than other categories get — it would be a reason to completely kibosh ever having any by-category lists at all, because "that information is already in the ceremony articles" is always true of every category article. But the practice has always been that the by-year lists should be cross-referenced with by-category lists, precisely so that a reader who wants to track the history of a specific category can do so in one place instead of having to jump back and forth across the by-year lists — so the only credible argument against this article would be that it's a new category that's only been presented once so far and doesn't have much prior history to list yet, but within one year that won't be true anymore.
And at any rate, film awards aren't in notability competitions with each other. If the CSAs are "less notable than the Oscars", that's only because Canada is a smaller country than the United States — and it's not relevant to notability anyway, because film and television notability depends solely on "top-level national film award", period, and has nothing to do with whether or not that award is as internationally famous beyond its own nation as the Oscars are. A film that won an award from some iteration of the Canadian Film Award → Genie Award → Canadian Screen Award sequence does not fail NFILM just because the CFA/G/CSAs aren't famous in Australia or Kazakhstan — it passes NFILM, because it won the highest level of film award it can win in its own country. So no, the CSAs don't have to compete with other countries' national film or television awards to determine whether they qualify for similar treatment or not: they merely have to be notable period, not more notable than other film or television awards. The Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Variety Series or Special, for just one example out of many, isn't the subject of any dedicated coverage in its own right either, but just meets the standard of having its results be verifiable within sources that collectively address the overall Emmy Awards program as a whole — but its lack of its own dedicated category-specific coverage is not a reason why it should be excluded from standard practice for award categories either. It comes down entirely to what's the best and most user-friendly way to present the information: by-year lists for people who want to know who won the awards in a given year, crossreferenced with by-category lists for people who want to know who won in a particular category across the years it was presented. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped reading your wall of text when your first line totally missed the point. I said "a topic like this", and further on indicated clearly that I was talking about a current, media-related topic from an English language country. If your reply then starts with "No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort", it makes no sense in spending more time replying to strawmen arguments. A cursory glance seems to indicate that the remainder of your text is a continuation of the otherstuffexists line, coupled with some irrelevant statements about how the award conveys notability (I note that the WP:NFILM guidelines defines this only for major awards like e.g. "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes", not every possible award given in Cannes: I guess the same would certainly apply to the Canadian awards). Fram (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have missed zero points. Firstly, you specifically equated editor effort with notability in the context of editors not putting the work into historical content that requires archival research to complete — so my pointing out that editor effort is not an infallible measure of notability was not missing the point, because that is exactly the context in which the point even came up to be discussed.
Secondly, NFILM does not say or even imply that notability deriving from Cannes attaches only to the "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix" specifically, while deprecating any other Cannes award as unable to make a film notable — for one thing, the body of NFILM does not actually contain the word Cannes at all. In a footnote, those Cannes awards get mentioned as examples of notable film awards that satisfy NFILM #3, but that footnote does not say or imply that they are the only awards that satisfy NFILM #3. All of Cannes' other award categories besides those three still have Wikipedia articles despite not being named in that footnote, and are still accepted as notability claims for a film as long as the article is properly sourced. The BAFTAs aren't named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The César Awards in France are not named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The Toronto International Film Festival is not named in that footnote, but its awards are still accepted as notability-makers for films. And on and so forth: the footnote cherrypicks a few representative examples for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of removing notability from all other awards it hasn't directly named.
The core point is still, however, that almost no individual category presented by any multicategory awards program ever actually gets its own dedicated reliable source attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony's overall coverage. Even at the Oscars, the categories mostly get verified by the overall coverage of the overall ceremony, but rarely if ever get their own special analysis as their own standalone thing independently of the Oscars as a whole. So no, each individual category does not have to independently clear GNG as the subject of its own category-specific analysis and coverage — because the overall awards program is far too large to cram all the relevant content into a single article, the most user-friendly way to present film (or literary) awards in Wikipedia is to have a by-year article that lists all of the categories presented in that year, cross-referenced with a by-category article that lists all of the winners and nominees in that category across the years.
It's not "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", either: this has always been standard practice for categories presented by notable multicategory film, television or literary award ceremonies. The only thing that's required is that the category is verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the by-year articles, because having crossreferenced by-year and by-category articles is the user-friendliest way of formatting our coverage of the overall awards program. Each individual category does not have to show that it has received special dedicated category-specific attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony, to qualify as notable — it merely has to be verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the notability of the ceremony as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note that Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors), started a year ago, has not advanced very far, so can't be used for guidance. Referring to WP:ANYBIO #1, which says simply "a well-known and significant award or honor", not "a well-known category of a well-known award", it seems that "notable award" could be interpreted as covering all categories of well-known and significant awards. This specific award is very new, having been introduced last year, so we are not going to find as much media coverage of it as for awards which have been in existence longer. I also see that there is a category "Film awards for makeup and hairstyling" [3] - the BAFTAS and the Academy Awards both have a single award for makeup and hair, but does that make separate awards less notable? Presumably the point of awards is to recognise work that contributes to the success of films and/or tv shows, and if the industry recognises it in national awards, and there is some coverage of it, Wikipedia should also recognise it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly with a redirect afterwards). A completely pointless article because its entire content is contained in the parent article. No sources actually about the award itself, either. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the parent article of this is Canadian Screen Awards, which does not contain a repetition of the same content. And secondly, individual categories presented as part of multi-category awards programs do not need to have their own independent category-specific coverage that analyzes them in isolation — I've already explained why above — all they have to be is verifiable in the sources that support the notability of the Canadian Screen Awards as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 April 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. All over the map. There is no consensus as to whether this meets GNG or not. There are those who support the idea that GNG is only criteria by which to judge notability, and there are those who feel that Wikipedia should present encyclopedic information on topics that are deemed inherently notable (example: Olympic athletes, but in this case those meeting FOOTY), no matter depth of coverage. I doubt further discussion will resolve the dichotomy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Victor Costa Soares

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

Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ymblanter, the lack of notability and a major league are too strong of factors. Garlicolive (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He has played in the K League 2, a fully professional-league (1, 2). Therefore he passes WP:NFOOTY. The article certiantly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you sure this is the same player? The article gives the birth year as 1999.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: Per the source I listed above. I think it a reasonable assumption that only one 'Paulo Victor Costa Soares' has moved to Phnom Penh this year. Tropicanan (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is the only coverage I can find about this player. We have nothing from which we can write an article. WP:42 After playing for fully-professional leagues for a couple of years and not receiving any coverage for it, he is now playing in a non-WP:FPL league. If he becomes notable, then we can create the article. Otherwise, this will be a perma-stub. Leviv ich 13:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about footballer who played one season in the fully-pro South Korean second division (with a side that finished rock bottom and went out of existence), and has otherwise played in semi-pro leagues. There is nearly no online coverage of him in his homeland (Brazil), and certainly nothing significant, and although I struggle with online Korean-language translators, I found nearly nothing about him (just a routine note on his signing). He's dropped out of fully-professional football and I doubt we will ever locate more significant coverage in the future. I'd like to believe an editor proficient in the Korean language could find something significant online, but it would be better to recreate the article when (and if) that happens. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive outside sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He plays in the Cambodian League, a completely professional league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitou012 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Vitou012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and appears to pass WP:GNG in foreign language sources (sort of a weak keep !vote, but a keep vote nevertheless.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – inviting keep !voters to post the WP:THREE examples of SIGCOV that pass GNG, as I can only find one [4], which is rather routine. Leviv ich 17:47, 13 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Divine

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

Non-notable porn star. Only has nominations for minor awards and mainstream appearances were minor as well. She's not even listed on IMDb for the two episodes of the TV series she was supposedly appeared in. Fails GNG, Pornbio and other applicable notability guidelines. Also the article has BLP problems with supposed real name of performer and unsourced name of her young child. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Any claims of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT cannot be supported by reliable secondary sources. This performer would not have even passed PORNBIO when it was in effect. The article's non-trivial references are promotional material coming from the subject. As usual, the award nominations don't cite significant coverage. An independent search for RS coverage came up with only false positives. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another is a very long list of articles on non-notable pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources except for trade publications and no major award wins or minor ones claimed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 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 Bradford Lyttle. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Pacifist Party

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

Article only links to self-published sources. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think this should be delete, just improved upon LoneWolf1992 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect/partial merge to Bradford Lyttle. Can't find evidence this has received substantive coverage or that it's an actual party, it's just one dude's amateurish attempt at activism. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think redirecting it to Bradford Lyttle would work. (talk) 2:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to Bradford Lyttle. His lyttle party never amounted to anything. A Proquest news archive search turns up a single article about a lecture he gave on pacifism, which includes the sentence, " In 1983, he founded the United States Pacifist Party, a small political group marked by an anti-military and anti-aggression platform," a handful of letters-to-the-editor , and a couple of candidate event listings. total 10 hits in the search over 4 decades, a testimony to this Party's lack of notability. A gBooks search is similar. typical hit: Rebels and Renegades: A Chronology of Social and Political Dissent in the United States : "A sampling of third parties active today would seem to confirm that lesson: there are the Common Good Party, the New Liberty Party, the Working Families Party, the Freedom Socialist Party, the United States Pacifist Party—all largely ignored ..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:15, 12 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Liberty Party

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

Article only links to self-published sources as well as a dead link to election results. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing substantive sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have searched, but I cannot find any SIGCOV, not an iota. It is mentioned in some lists of non-notable parties by one or two humor writers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:23, 12 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence indexing

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning is that this appears to be a hoax. [5] Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems fake. Mosaicberry (talk) 21:44, 8 April 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 Reform Party of the United States of America. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Reform Party

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

Article only links to self-published sources and and a dead link. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Reform Party (Northern Mariana Islands) if that's okay. Local affiliate has no notability outside the national party. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although page is presently un-sourced and self-sourced at present, this party did have a brief moment (apologies for using a paywalled Proquest news archive search):
PEROT DEFECTORS CREATE AMERICAN REFORM PARTY: [VALLEY Edition Rogers Worthington Chicago Tribune. Daily News; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]06 Oct 1997:
American Reform Party fading away as political season gets serious: [National Edition Cienski, Jan. National Post; Don Mills, Ont. [Don Mills, Ont]22 Jan 2000: A13. ] Tehrefore:
redirect to Reform Party of the United States of America and create a brief mention at subhead: Plateau and decline, subsection: 2000 Presidential election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect Splinter group that did not gain any traction or receive substantive third-party coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reform Party of the United States of America (with the history preserved under the redirect) and "create a brief mention at subhead: Plateau and decline, subsection: 2000 Presidential election" as suggested by E.M.Gregory.
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 29 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Populist Party

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

Article only has one source and does not appear to have any elected officers. It also apparently is defunct and doesn’t seem to have any coverage in reliable, non-trivial sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "minor political party" is quite the stretch for this amateur hour. No evidence of substantive coverage or that they did literally anything. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 8 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (The Dark Knight Returns)

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

FORK and fancruft, not stand alone worthy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 8 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Renaud

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. Her strongest notability claim is having been shortlisted for minor, non-notable literary awards, and her sourcing consists of two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all; two unrecoverable dead links in limited-distribution media outlets that would be fine for supplementary verification if she'd already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but aren't really makers of a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer; and a short book review in a library association newsletter. Nothing stated in the article gets her over the more achievement-based author criteria, but the sources aren't strong enough to give her the "notable just because sources exist" pass either. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started searching for and adding additional references, and updating the information based on more recent sources. She won the QWF Prize for Children's & Young Adult Literature last year. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:RebeccaGreen has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Thanks −MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found several other reviews, I'll put links on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have just created a little article on one of her notable books called Fania's Heart. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, Renaud has written a number of notable books (see above for one of them:)) that have received reviews from reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 15 April 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 withdrawn by WikiDan61 (nominator) based on prior AFD results.

The Powers of the Earth

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

Non-notable book. This apparently self-published book (Morlock Publishing lists only titles by Corcoran on its website^[1]) won the Prometheus Award for 2018, but otherwise I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the book. The Prometheus Award is not recognized as a major book award, either for general literature, or even for science fiction literature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Morlock Publishing". Retrieved 8 April 2019.

Withdrawn, based on prior AFD results. (Hadn't seen that before nominating!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Happy to restore/draft if he ends up playing ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kielly

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

Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY yet or to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever does. DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (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/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication that this player has gained notability beyond the usual coverage of a hockey player at his level. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for hockey players is not just the act of signing to an NHL team, because lots of people do that but then never actually get beyond the farm team level. The notability test for hockey players is actually making ice in at least one NHL-level game, which Kielly has not yet done — and since the Canucks are already out of the playoffs, the earliest he can possibly clear the notability bar at all is next season. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's actually crossed that line, but signing a contract eight days ago and having zero NHL-level stats yet is not the bar he has to cross. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. And eeesh, it's just plain obnoxious to deprod without giving the vaguest reason to do so. Just sayin'. Ravenswing 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails to meet either the GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Bearcat. He has signed for the Canucks but that doesn't guarentee he'll either actually make the team or play 200 plus AHL games. Long story short, it's too soon. Tay87 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 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) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party of Delaware

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

Only one source here does not link to election results or the party website. A quick google search failed to turn up any significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (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/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The IPoD has hundreds of members, has ran multiple candidates at the state level for state legislature and governor, and articles can be easily found about it if for articles in Delaware instead of the national level. It is far better to keep the article and continue with the additional citations are needed rather than just delete the article. Jon698 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage comes up in an simple gNews search [6] to persuade me that a decent article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:01, 12 April 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 Independent American Party. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent American Party of Hawaii

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

Article is unsourced and has no real content. Does not appear to be notable or to have been covered in a non-trivial manner in sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (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/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Independent American Party, no evidence the state affiliates are independent on their own. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence that this state-level branch party was ever noticed by anyone. Zero hits in news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:45, 12 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Independence Party

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

Article has no sources and barely any content. Does not appear to be notable, nor does it seem have to have had non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (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/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never won an election. No notable members. Sole source on page is a listing in a voting guide. Sole mention in a Proquest news archive search was by a non-notable humour columnist in a small Missouri paper, who lists it as an example of the absurd. Book mentions of this party are mere name-checks, despite the fact that writing about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement has recently become a major Hawaiian industry. Nothing here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:58, 12 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kampala Boyz

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

Duo/Group that doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND as almost all sources are simply announcements or are not in-depth. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage in national press and have won three notable awards so should be included in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 21 April 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 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Mall

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

Minor local mall. Was deleted back in 2014, and nothing has changed to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the previous AfD discussion and the lack of change in the subject's notability since then. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-descript mall, which seems to no longer exist? Thus no likelihood of further—or any—coverage in RS. I assume the reason it hasn't been G4'd is the amount of time that's passed? A good idea, in any case, as we can now establish a new consensus as to the subject's notability. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, Serial Number 54129 - that's the reason I didn't request speedy, since it's been almost 5 years since the last AfD. I don't like wasting editors' time if there's no need, but I felt that the length of time was sufficient enough that a new discussion was warranted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; and, of course, arguably it saves time in the future, when G4 will have (presumably) become available. ——SerialNumber54129 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tiny mall with just a few stores and nowhere near the level of independent sources to make it notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and previous AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable strip mall. Nate • (chatter) 04:05, 9 April 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 Partition and secession in California#21st century. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California National Party

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

Organization has only received coverage in two outlets as cited here: a small piece in the Sacramento Bee and an article in Vice. Organization has no elected officers, does not have many members at all. Coverage appears to be trivial or incidental in every source I have seen. This political party just doesn't seem to be notable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The CNP has hundreds of members, has ran multiple candidates at the state level, and articles can be easily found about it if you search at the California level instead of the national level. Jon698 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Partition and secession in California, sources cover people wanting to secede, not the party itself. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Partition and secession in California#21st century. Fails WP:SIGCOV but ther eis enougo to put a couple of sentences on the merge target page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 17 April 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 deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repixeling

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

This is some covert WP:ARTSPAM for a term that, as far as I can tell, isn't notable, widely used or covered outside of the companies trying to push it. Also WP:ESSAY definitely applies. Praxidicae (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Praxidicae is correct. This is not a term being used widely - searches for both "repixel" and "repixeling" (when used with quotes) along with "retargeting" turn up basically nothing on this term outside of one company, and its founders attempts to spread mentions elsewhere. The article creator has been blocked for a promotional username and promotional editing. I don't think the article is as blatantly promotional as others seem to, but the term doesn't meet the notability threshold. I'd normally be inclined to redirect to site retargeting, but there's simply no use outside this company that I can find to support that. MarginalCost (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Was clearly made to popularize their Repixel site on Wikipedia, that counts as advertising Daiyusha (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG and is a disguised advert as the first reference (now deleted) went to the sales site of the company promoting this advertising system, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 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. This seems to be a rather pointed AFD nomination. I strongly suggest that the nominator either step away from the conversation entirely or take a deep breath and actually participate in a consensus discussion on the talk page. The consensus in the last discussion is the same as the consensus in this discussion, it's notable, and as one of your peers said notability isn't temporary. Whatever issues or qualms you have with the article need to be discussed, not pushed bypassing procedures in place to work on articles with issues. AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Entertainment

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

Lantern Entertainment is Weinstein Company (TWC), as it is Weisntein Company's assets and remaining staff despite a new business form. Under that line of thinking DreamWorks would have three different articles. In the prior deletion discussion, explaining the same issue to Lantern employees where taken as "edit warring", which their editing or tell us what to do is COI. Those opposing support a violation of WP:ORGSIG, ie. just because it exists it is notable. They would also claiming WP:INHERITORG based on its purchase of TWC. Additional since that deletion discussion further actions make it unlikely Lantern would met WP:COMPANY. Lantern Entertainment only became a transitory entity by its transfer of it assets to Spyglass Media Group then holding entity by holding Lantern Capital's holding in Spyglass. Spshu (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this company is notable on its own. There are numerous articles about this company proceeding with Weinstein Co. assets. Los Angeles Times says, "The veteran South African-born executive has teamed with Lantern Entertainment, which bought the assets of the defunct Weinstein Co. last year... it acquired the remains of the Weinstein Co. out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July for $289 million." Weinstein Co. went bankrupt. That company's article should be historical. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the article Erik cites is about the transfer of the Weinstein Co. asset to Spyglass Media Group, which has its own article being a reactivation of an existing company. Spshu (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article was recently kept at AfD, sourcing supports the AfD outcome, and notability is not temporary. As the closing admin said in the previous AfD, "separate editorial consensus can be decided as to whether the articles should be merged, changed, or moved". I understand that the nominator (of both AfDs) disagreed with the previous outcome, but the way to handle this going forward is at the article talk pages. Talk: Lantern Entertainment and Talk:Spyglass Media Group are thataway. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sourcing did NOT support the AfD outcome nor notability. At best, at purchasing Weinstein Company is inheriting notability, which does NOT grant notability. Others consider this an appropriate forum. Thus you are going to make an issue out of having an official deletion discussion or informal ones on the the talk page. Spshu (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more interesting diffs are [7] and [8], in which you blanked and redirected the page multiple times AFTER the previous AfD, against community consensus, without discussion, and after being reverted. That's disruptive editing, and I suggest you let this one go before your activities on this article draw scrutiny from someone with a block button. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because as point out in the nomination and in the edit summary, Lantern Entertainment will have only three actions, purchase of Weinstein assets, purchase of full control of three Quentin Tarantino films then the transfer to Spyglass Media Group. You were disruptive at the last AfD for claiming that the only place these are articles can be discussion are the talk pages - in defiance of the vary exists of AfD as you do again here. The prior AfD is based on that it is an article fork, same article thus notability isn't addressed. Making false claim so as a new consensus can be formed and attempt to short circuit this discussion because I was bold in understanding Lantern Entertainment's notability status and that existing is not per WP:ORGSIG "No company or organization is considered inherently notable." for which the redirect reverter explain as the removal reason. Which a prior editor put forth for reverting making a redirect "rvt redirection - this is a separate company". You, Bakazaka, by your statements above is involved in WP:DAPE and disruptive tendency 2. Don't come cherry pick to make like you are for talk/concensus making when you are trying to suppress it. Spshu (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could double down on WP:IDHT, I guess. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Company plainly exists and is distributing content; as with my last nom vote!, this is completely disruptive, you're tuning out any consensus that's being built for your own interpretations, and whatever is going on with Spyglass, we'll come to that road when we come to it. Bakazaka has the right interpretations of your actions again. I also see zero bytes of conversation on the Lantern and Spyglass talk pages, so you obviously have never considered posting anything to those pages, nor notifying interested users, when that's the first step well before deletion. Speaking of, archive your own user talk page already; someone on an average connection shouldn't have to wait 90 seconds to load and read it. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support The nomination is very difficult to understand. However, what I can decipher of it, I sort of agree with. Lantern Entertainment is for nearly all intents and purposes, the Weinstein Company under a different name and corporate structure. It is therefore notable, because the Weinstein Company is. But as a result of that, it is not an entirely distinct entity from the Weinstein Company. I think in cases like these, the Weinstein Company should be moved over Lantern Entertainment, and a single article which contains the entire history of the company should exist, because Wikipedia doesn't handle this consistently at the best of times -- e.g. Mondelez is actually the legal successor to the old Kraft Foods Inc., while the article for Sony Music, includes its history before it merged with (the old) BMG, the period where it was merged with BMG is then covered under Sony BMG, then for the current period, where BMG sold its stake and the BMG name was removed, Sony Music again becomes the article which covers that period in history. The current SME is clearly a renamed SBMG, but because the names matches that of the original Sony Music, they are covered in a single article. Getting back to my point, Wikipedia's general treatment of continuity in company historys is often arbitrary and inconsistent -- in this case I think Lantern and Weinstein are one entity, and should have one entry, at the newest incarnation. But I can't fully support this nomination because I'm not certain that's what's being proposed, since that should be a merge listing anyway. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize: You're actually proposing a keep for this AfD, and adding an editorial recommendation to merge the Weinstein article into this one. Bakazaka (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But my understanding of the proposal seems to read like that is what is being proposed, in the other direction (deleting this, and merging it's content into the Weinstein Company). But it's listed as a deletion, not a merge, hence partial support. Also because I'm not certain that's what the requester is proposing - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI at the time of this RM there appeared to be a consensus against moving the TWC article to Lantern. I for one think the ouster of the Weinsteins gives Lantern a rather different identity, but either way we need a consensus at a broader level. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Spyglass turns out to be handling all Weinstein titles in the future and hence Lantern indeed a transitory entity, it might make sense to merge this article with either TWC or Spyglass. But at this point it is premature (WP:CRYSTAL) to make either assumption. Nardog (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 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) InvalidOS talk 13:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concha Gómez

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. I can't find any citation count, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As a community college instructor, she is unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and I don't think she does. However, in-depth coverage in the sources from Science and Mashable show a pass of WP:GNG instead. Because the stories are so far apart in time (from 2005 and 2018), there is no issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, though probably not WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG; some coverage such as this will be under "Concetta" rather than "Concha". PamD 09:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that the Science article is definitely in-depth, but the Mashable article I did not think was enough significant coverage. A before turned up some mentions, but the only other in-depth piece I could come up with was a Univ of Wisconsin student newspaper piece. The example PamD gives is actually a press release for a conference, and I don't think those count towards notability. I didn't check under Concetta Gomez, but a News search returned 0 hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein -- agree with others that she doesn't pass WP:PROF, but the Science piece is very solid and should be enough with the additional sources available. --JBL (talk) 09:18, 11 April 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 Carnegie Mellon University. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oakland Review

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

Prod removed by article creator. However, no independent sources showing notability. Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable as multiple professors have been involved with the publication (e.g. Jim Daniels and Terrance Hayes), and many noteworthy contributors (e.g. Jewell Parker Rhodes, David Yezzi, Gerald Costanzo). Edit: I was not aware of Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. 84percent (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability for magazine or journal media mentions award-winning work and frequent citations as possible standards for notability. I'm not sure if the AWP's undergraduate journal award finalist position would count as "award-winning" but the journal is also cited in various poet-bios on the internet. Doing a quick search showed that poems in its issue had won the 2018 Academy of American Poets Prize ("Coumbite" according to the award page and "Carol" according to the list of poems on the journal article's website). I would say merge, but I don't know how to put all of this into the Carnegie Mellon Wikipedia article. Userqio (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in RS. Or, merge to Carnegie Mellon. Citrivescence (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carnegie Mellon per WP:FAILN. The lack of independent coverage to establish notability means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, but it'd be a useful search term to keep, and there is WP:ABOUTSELF content that can be used at the Carnegie Mellon article. Leviv ich 00:41, 13 April 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. I have withdrawn this proposal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire

AfDs for this article:

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

The only reliable source is not independent of the subject. The previous deletion proposal failed because it attracted his fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources include the numerous sources listed in the article, along with publications including Locus [9], Publishers Weekly [10] [11] [12], The Monarch Review, Fantasy Magazine [13], Asimov's Science Fiction [14], and New York Journal of Books. Various other mentions and references can be found with a Google search or two, here are a few random mentions: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Other sources listed in the article include The Lovecraft eZine, The New York Review of Science Fiction, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and The Seattle Times. I am quite confused on how the nominator came to the conclusion that "The only reliable source is not independent of the subject". MarkZusab (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes I was similarly confused. Could the nominator expand on this please? Mccapra (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per MarkZusab. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MarkZusab has already pointed out the relevant parts for how this article meets the guidelines for notability. It is also worth pointing out that the previous attempt at deletion did not fail due to canvassing, but because people pointed out sufficient evidence of the author's notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Iarann (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what it is about Pugmire that attracts rubbish delete requests, but if we're now assuming Locus and Publisher's Weekly (to list just two) are not independent and mere "fans" then something has gone very wrong with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre nomination. Clearly notable author. And no, I'm not one of his fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 17 April 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) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Policy Digest

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

I was removing refs to International Policy Digest, a website that invites submissions from the general public and publishes them with a disclaimer that the content isn't reliable. Then I opened our article on it, finding it has zero references and just an external link to the site itself. It has been tagged for lack of references for more than a two years,[20] and no references have been supplied. I preformed a Notability search via Google News as well as general Google search. I was unable to find any reliable sources providing coverage about International Policy Digest. Skimming the history, it looks like substantially all content was added by a pair of SPAs, and deleted as unsourced puffery. The remaining content is little more than an unsourced business directory listing, still with a whiff of puffery. It looks like a clear delete for failing Notability guidelines, and because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional or indiscriminate business directory. Alsee (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not notable. 84percent (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to support keeping it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 14 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic University

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Islamic seminary based on Chemmad, led by Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. The seminary doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. But the seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or CISCE the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is a recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable. MalayaliWoman (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, Admins I would like add the article Darunnajath Islamic Complex to here, I think that also a linked seminary. MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be keep Because Darul Huda Islamic University is an accredited university.Nadwi Kooriyad (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are multiple English-language sources, including international ones, that mention and discuss DHIU. I strongly suspect that local sources (in Malayalam) also exist, but I lack the language skills to look for them. University "accredition" is dubious (and not mentioned on the website Nadwi Kooriyad linked to above) since it doesn't award any university-level degrees but relies on its students to get those from an open university, but it does seem to operate as a high school. Huon (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable.MalayaliWoman (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MalayaliWoman, I am aware that someone said so in the previous deletion discussion, but what's the evidence that they don't follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations? Are those the only boards in Kerala, and something not following them is not a high school? DHIU seems to require that its "university" students attend an open university, and I find it difficult to believe that a degree-granting university would accept people without a genuine high school diploma. That said, I disagree with the GNG assessment; the article cites quite a few reliable sources, I know that some additional ones, including more international media coverage, exist but aren't particularly helpful, and that's not even touching Malayalam or Hindi sources which are also likely to exist. Huon (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon:, also note the references referred to have been deleted with much else of the article by the edit warring nominator who has added unreferenced non-neutral assertions that are immediately contradicted by the first of the remaining references Atlantic306 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have reverted the page to a better-sourced version without the patently false claim of it being a "diploma mill". There seems to be quite a bit of sockpuppetry going on, on both sides. Huon (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the sources analysis by @Huon: and previous deletion discussions. Csgir (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a legitimate argument for deletion discussions. I have examined the available sources, and it does not seem that the criteria of WP:SIGCOV under WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NORG and WP:GNG is met. Analysis: (i) the Saudi Gazette source is largely WP:PRIMARY, as large chunks of the article include the author quoting or paraphrasing the interviewee, and in that it is at most a second-party source, and therefore cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability; (ii) the Hindu source reads like a press release/churnalism (see WP:PRIMARY), and it probably is one too; (iii) the DHIU source is WP:PRIMARY as well as it is from the school's website; (iv) the second article from Hindu is an obituary of an individual who served as the Pro-Chancellor of the institution, and does not give significant coverage to the institution; (v) the article in the New Indian Express is about a student magazine that makes a transitory reference to the institution. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Per Huon.Saff V. (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually nominated this for deletion back in 2013, for reasons I came to understand were mistaken. I've not seen anything change in the sense of the subject becoming less notable, and the fact that this was nominated by a sockpuppet raises the possibility of bad faith being involved here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Because the DHIU is an accredited Indian University. 2405:204:D40C:A27A:A491:23F6:6F08:E7B8 (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG as there is significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:42, 23 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Brewing and Distilling

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

It's not clear why this should be considered notable under WP:NORG or other applicable. There are a bunch of sources to the organization itself but I can't seem to find anything solid elsewhere. It's been tagged as deficient for going on four years now. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

- Although the organisation is an important part of the professional brewing community this page is not up to the requirements of a page in an encyclopedia - The lists of red links and the stagnation in article development does little to support the need to keep the page I certainly do see why one would recommend this for deletion. However it is a significant organisation in the brewing industry and the global professional brewing community. I will commit to working on the page to some level of acceptability. &Brew^t@lk 08:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this is a "significant" organization in the brewing community, then there should be reliable sources stating so. Where are they, please? Nha Trang ^Allons! 00:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable trade association in a notable industry in a notable country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notable how exactly, please? Just baldly stating it doesn't make it so. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, considering you've baldly stated it isn't! It is the main professional association for brewers in Britain, a major country known for its beer. It has been so for well over a century. That, as far as I'm concerned, meets the notability criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you review this page I've made no positive statement about the org's notability. What I said was there's a multi-year failure to demonstrate notability, and my WP:BEFORE look for such failed. Again, to make a positive contribution here we need sources not opinions. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A re-check per WP:BEFORE turned up a one-column entry in The Oxford Companion to Beer [21], but we'll need more than this. Note that the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling is an unrelated but probably notable entity. Bri.public (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Cleaned up references on the page, which I believe caused some confusion with regards to notability. Likewise, just looking at a Google News search as shown here [22], I see multiple references to the Institute. Granted, not in-depth, but more than enough to establish notability as an organization that can be looked at as gaining notability under WP:MULTSOURCES. In addition, if we look to Google Scholar as shown here [23] we literally see thousands (1,000+) cites to the organization. Being tagged as deficient is not a reason for deletion but a reason for clean up. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't decided yet. The organisation may well be notable, but it definitely reads like an advert at the moment. Deb (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Oxford Companion to Beer is an excellent source and explains that this organisation has been through several name changes since being founded as the Laboratory Club in 1886. As the current name is comparatively recent (2005), there is likely to be more material under the other, older names. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but it does need some work. Several primary sources will need to be replaced. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:34, 24 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Àkin

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources in the article are primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The award he won is not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has won a number of international awards and has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Pulse Nigeria and it is a strong sign of notability that he is being interviewed in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: While Pulse is a reliable source, from experience in the Nigerian perspective, WP:MUSICBIO is a better way of evaluating notability of newer generation musicians than WP:GNG. I'm not confident of the significance of the most prestigious awards won, "African Entertainment Award" and " Independent Music Award". Let me also point that there is another better referenced Nigerian artiste that goes by a similar name, "Akin Shuga". The reason I'm not giving an outright delete is that there is a chance he's more proclaimed overseas than locally, and I'm not sure I've gone through enough Canadian sources. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DIPP

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: Has been around for quite a while, never really had any major breakthrough. Can be kept if better written. References such as these can act as foundation - 1, 2, 3. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per handsome boy who has found additional references and at least one of those has substantial coverage. Also, he has won three major awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 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 Interactive urinal. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Media

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

shameless promotion by COI. non notable company. a small amount of press coverage due to a once novel concept. the entire article just reads like a press release Rayman60 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Basically all the sources for this article are about the companys video game urinal product rather then the company itself, and it appears an article about the product already exists at Interactive urinal. Any relevant content in this article should just be merged into that article since the sources are all about the urinal really rather than the product. This company is also already mentioned on the Interactive urinal article but also has a bit of a promotional tone so could be rewritten. Meszzy² (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Interactive urinal as a WP:ATD alternative mentioned by Meszzy2. References in the article and in my searches do not show significant coverage of the company itself (but of the product), making it fail WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 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. All "delete" !votes air concerns about the article's current state. However, AFD is not for cleanup and Spinningspark presents several RS that can be used to improve the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions in Kentucky

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

Unexplained prod removal. Whole article is a selection of statistics (WP:NOTSTATS) from a 30-year-old government report, so I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping such an outdated topic is. I don't think just finding updated stats would be a good article topic, with no similar articles for other states, but similar stats at List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, complete failure of WP:BEFORE. First of all, an article having a single source is not a reason for deletion. It might be if that were the only source in existence, but that is not the case here. Secondly, being 30-years old has no basis in policy for discounting it. Even if it is out of date (and you can only know that if you have found a more recent source, in which case your action should have been to incorporate that source, not nominate for deletion) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should rightly include history of its topics. That includes the state of play of greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990. I am entirely sick of people deleting or overwriting information in Wikipedia because it is out of date when it should just have been rewritten to remove the appearance of being current per MOS:DATED.

This is an easily demonstrable notable topic; coal seam fires and the greenhouse gases they produce are a big issue in Kentucky. There have been several published studies into this [24][25][26]. Numerous other scholarly papers can be found on greenhouse gases in the south-eastern United States from which information on Kentucky can be extracted. Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts discusses at length plans to store CO₂ underground in Kentucky. SpinningSpark 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When readers click on the link I think they would be expecting to find info about the current situation. So I think it is wasting the reader's time to have info which the reader cannot rely on as current (at least to the past few years) or not. If someone has the time and inclination to update this article they might think it instead more useful to update Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because they can be improved per WP:ATD which is policy. What is your policy-based reason for deletion? There is also WP:NOTNEWS which says the diametric opposite of expecting to find info about the current situation, namely Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and is also policy. If the greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990 were notable then, they are still notable now. And by the way, do you have any actual evidence that this information is out of date? The coal fires I referred to above are a major, possibly the major, source of greenhouse gas emission in Kentucky and they are still burning now, decades later. SpinningSpark 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify The article merely lists (in prose) measurements from a report. No context, no examination of impact or importance of any of those measurements. Not to say that greenhouse gasses in Kentucky aren't deserving of an article, but this isn't it without significant improvement.

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) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Northern Cyprus

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

Northern Cyprus was established de facto after the Turkish invasion in 1974 and de jure (leaving aside the actual legality of it) in 1983, therefore it cannot have participated in any conflict prior to that; its participation in the War on Terror is unreferenced, and as an unrecognized puppet state, highly unlikely at that Constantine ✍ 08:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely spurious. Mccapra (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Northern Cyprus can only be involved in wars taking place after its de jure establishment in 1983. No source is given for a participation in the War on Terror as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list is unnecessary, the main article of Cyprus already covers all of these wars. Garlicolive (talk) 02:42, 12 April 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) 10:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs of Finland

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

There is no source to prove that this group of people has any notability. Also, the cited source says that there are 244 people born in Serbia living in Finland as of 2018. But, that doesn't mean they are all Serbs. I guess most of them are Albanians born in Kosovo, and this article is about Serbs. So, it is not clear if there are any Serbs in Finland at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only peice of information on this page is the count they give, no notable people list or more information on the demographics, and that one count statistic doesn't need its entire own page. Meszzy² (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. The tidbit of information could easily fit under demographics headers in Finland or Helsinki. 84percent (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see Finland benefit from a mention of the number of every nationality living there. I mean, either we'd specifically mention the Serbs for no particular reason or we'd have a very long list. That's probably even worse than letting it have it's own article: Finland is a pretty widely read article, and things mentioned there should be important. /Julle (talk) 23:27, 10 April 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 Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renée French (actress)

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

Actress with just 2 roles. Only one of them is even on Wikipedia. It seems that her notable role is in a segment of an anthology film called Coffee and Cigarettes and if not deleted should be a redirect to there. Can't find anything else that cries notability for her. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect probably. I'm not even sure that the Renée French who was in Coffee and Cigarettes is the same one who was in Nowhere Fast - I found this book, Jim Jarmusch: Music, Words and Noise with a chapter called "Voices: John Lurie", where John Lurie says "Renée [French] is in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992 when she was my girlfriend. ....She'd never acted before and acted in Jim's film, you know, so it's a big thing for Renée." [27] (p 99). I'm not sure I really understand "in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992" - does it mean "she appeared in Coffee and Cigarettes because in 1992 she was my girlfriend"??? But whether she was in other films like Nowhere Fast or not, that does not appear to be a notable film, so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. I don't find anything about her in a google or Newspapers.com search either - not an easy name to search for, as there are several other Renée Frenches, including a writer, a singer, a teacher, a Miss America .... but none that seem to be this one. However, she did have a significant role in Coffee and Cigarettes, so redirecting to Coffee_and_Cigarettes#Renée would make sense (and perhaps including the source I have found as a reference for that section? although it can't be considered independent). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renee as suggested as her only notable role and she is not independently notable at this time, a redirect is little more than a deletion anyway Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. There aren't any serious content issues besides the lack of notability, and the section there is sufficient. Pretty much everything is covered there anyway, so not much would be lost, but the redirect may help people find the section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the movie article does have a section on her/her character so it makes sense to redirect there instead of a delete. Meszzy² (talk) 08:31, 8 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appbox Pro

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG as reliable sources could not be located on the subject, previous AfD did not have substantial arguments towards keeping IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several reviews here and here. @NerdyScienceDude: wrote in 2010: "It has been featured as the top paid app in the App Store a few months ago. It has also been downloaded over a million times." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link two of them you find the best for notability? Pavlor (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am slightly on fence, but these all seem to be indepth coverage of the app: Macworld [28], 148 Apps which was deemed as situational to use per WP:VG/RS [29]. There is also this [30] and this coverage in book [31]. It's not really much notable, but it doesn't seem to be WP:BARE notable either. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is two sentences. The app has a total of six reviews on the iTunes App Store. The reviews mentioned above are likely paid coverage. No reliable sources. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84percent (talk • contribs) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The possible references found look pretty sparse to me; the kinds of basic review you'd expect when any new app launches, and nothing that suggests anything particularly notable about this one. Mccapra (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 22 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixedsys Excelsior

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

Non-notable abandonware typeface. IP user removed my PROD tag. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a review as a reference. The lack of a recent update does not detract from notability. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lest I be misunderstood, my argument is that this was never notable, not that the time passing has taken away from its notability, I simply mention the abandonment because it being abandoned means it's unlikely to ever become so. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But Eastmain seriously? A "review" (if has great coverage of about 5,992 characters and renders tack sharp at 16px is called as such) on a Tumblr blog post? This is as close to WP:TROUT, and still far, far away from meeting anything close to WP:GNG which requires multiple significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. My search failed to bring any indepth reviews in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, no Reliable Sources available for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not been able to find any sources. Mosaicberry (talk) 15:50, 22 April 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 West Footscray warehouse fire

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT and notable as per WP:GEOSCOPE.--PATH SLOPU 05:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There have been more developments since the fire, as shown in a Google News search. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fire was in August 2018, there was still significant coverage through to December 2018, in particular for example, which shows very significant in-depth core coverage by a highly reliable source. Coverage and reporting is still occuring at least as recently as February 2019. Given the nature of the fire, revelations to-date, there is almost certainly more to come. This subject is neither a single event nor contemporaneous news. Aoziwe (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Eastmain has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Meszzy² (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was by no means a "run-of-the-mill fire" - The Age called it "one of the worst industrial blazes in decades" [32]. The article as it was when it was nominated for deletion did not show the seriousness of the fire, or the investigations it led to into illegal storage of toxic chemicals. It appears the creator started the article in September 2018, and then no-one added to it. There is plenty more that could be added - I will also try to do so, as other editors have too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced from reliable sources and satisfies WP:NEVENT. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RebeccaGreen. It could definitely be improved. There's been many updates since. 84percent (talk) 11:24, 8 April 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) 10:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Express West Midlands routes 66 & 66A

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

Non notable bus route. There's a lot of unsourced information with regards to the Gravelly Industrial Park diversion (NXWM would've put out a press release but I can't find anything) and while information on previous vehicles used is slightly interesting, it is uncited and not particularly pertinent to the article as a whole. RÆDWALD E|T 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to hold off on voting until I understand this issue better. But how are these bus routes (even the other ones within the Midlands category) remotely eligible for inclusion in WP? All of these seem remarkably non-notable. Skirts⁸⁹ 08:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National Express West Midlands is welcome to include a List of routes subsection, but the routes themselves certainly don't appear notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 8 April 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.

[1] "Morlock Publishing". Retrieved 8 April 2019.

[1]