Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 November	22 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Moved back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sweeney (consultant)[edit]

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

This page is a mess and reads like an advertisement or personal website for this guy. It's been PRODed and G11d and had the tags removed both times. It's possible this guy is notable, but I think we've well passed the WP:TNT point for this particular rendition of the page. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved to include additional reliable sources and the text has been modified to eliminate promotional tone. I came upon this page today, and I have made several edits in the attempt of making the article less like a personal website or LinkedIn profile, and more like a subjective page on a notable person. The subject is set to be portrayed in The Front Runner, about Gary Hart's presidential run in 1988, in which the subject served as Hart's press secretary. I'm not saying that being portrayed in a film makes a person more notable, but the page for the movie alerted me to him in the first place, which says something. As you can see from the edit history on the page, I have been making copyedits and attempting to source the content. KidAd (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged this last for speedy. This is horrible and needs to be removed from mainspace. I don't care if it is deleted or moved to draft to be worked over, but this needs to be done over from scratch. Horrible industrial waste in our beautiful project. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Refs are a jumble of broken links and primary sources. Send back to draft at least. Not ready for main space. Concerns regarding promotional tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Carefully looking at everything he maybe notable so i think it should be moved to draft and improved upon PlotHelpful (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN ~~Keep~~ (see new iVote below). his book was widely reviewed (I added a few of the reviews). I also added profiles of him that ran in the Washington Post and People Magazine after the Hart campaign folded. Someone else has added a profile formteh Los Angeles Times. I have beefed up article a little; It needs a lot more work. Most of the coverage is the last century (eg. Gary Hart#1988 presidential campaign). I used a proquest news archive. Lots more out there that can be added. search bar is useless, but gBooks searches on his name with keywords brings up a lot of useful stuff from which article can be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that swaths of PROMO have been removed from the page by multiple editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until all promotional content has been removed - then protect. Deb (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seeing PROMO, please take it out. Article was started in 2005 by @Ombudsman: who may or may not wish to weigh in. However, desirable as it is to have Wikipedia:Good articles, perfection is not required to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, the nomination isn't primarily on the grounds of notability. Deb (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, except fo rtotal lack on inline sourcing, the 2005 [1] version was better written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until all promotional content has been removed - then protect. changing my mind. Frankly, I do so many AfDs on consultants and authors that I tend to search for notability first, and only look at article history later. Sweeney is certainly notable. But, now that I have looked at page's recent history, I see what appear to be multiple accounts coming to add blatant PROMO to the page, and replacing it when deleted. settling on a PROMO-free version and page protecting makes sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like an interesting fellow, but not a Notable one. Comes off as self-promotional. --Leflyman^Talk 23:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CobbleStone Software[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 and G11 Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources and nothing found inevitably means a delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHIS ratio[edit]

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

No source provided or found to suggest this topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, google and news aren't showing anything that could be used for wp:n. No refs in the article although my google searching did return one for radioactivity.... Szzuk (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viva+[edit]

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

Unreferenced futurism Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been no substantive edits since 2014 to this article about a television channel. The link to the channel's website is broken, and so is the link to the parent company's site, so the article has no usable sources (much less any independent sources). A look at the parent company's actual website didn't establish whether the channel still exists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Visi Media Asia. Szzuk (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sid is Dead[edit]

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

Non-notable American upcoming film.--RTY9099 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commoner Party of Thailand[edit]

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

non notable political party. Nothing found in a before search of much interest Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Plenty of coverage, including these articles in English[2][3] and more in Thai.[4][5][6][7][8][9] It's a minor party which hasn't had the chance to contest any elections yet, but the support it has received from prominent activists and scholars is significant. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: could you indicate from when these Thai sources date? I am on a mobile and can't convert the Thai dates. Are they just run of the mill coverage of the creation of the party? There are general elections coming up in 3 months I believe, have they announced candidates? Do we have an idea of how many members the party has ? This might give us an idea of the significance of the party. As mentioned below there is a new party with the same name are they linked? I can't connect to their web site, on their Facebook page they seem to be reposting coverage from 2013 and 2014. Thanks. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domdeparis, All of the above links are about this party, not the other one. While most cover the party announcement, the Voice TV programme is presumably an in-depth interview with the founder (presumed because the video isn't loading for me). The Kom-Chad-Luek article is from this January, and contains political analysis of the possibility that an influential businessman will be running for election under the party. Elections being held on 24 February is still a big if, and the official decree will not be made until after 10 December. That said, I haven't seen recent in-depth coverage of the party, but there's plenty of passing mention that indicates it is very much expected to be active in the upcoming election. The Election Committee lists 23 registered members for the party (keep in mind that political activities were banned shortly after the party's registration). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012:Yes I saw that this is not a good period for democracy in Thailand. Oddly enough this is not something we hear a lot about here in Europe (or at least in France). I'm not in a position to judge these sources but I trust your judgement and if you believe they are enough to meet the criteria please don't hesitate to !vote keep and I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite confident yet either; I'll be happy to leave this discussion open for further input. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for that, let's see what happens. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Clear pass of GNG. Another failure of WP:BEFORE. Note that nom's claim that nothing "of much interest" was found is a red herring. The value of sources is not dependent on what nom finds interesting. Besides sources in article and those listed above by Paul_012, see:
- - Commoner Party ready to take an uncommon approach
  - Commoner Party Seeks to Put the Poor in Parliament

192.160.216.52 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have noticed but the sources in the article refer to a commoner party founded in 2014 by Tanaporn Sriyakul.[10]. The 2 sources that you have added (that I also found) mention a party "the new Commoners Party," founded by Kittichai Ngamchaipisit and Chumaporn Taengkliang, in 2018. They do not seem to be the same party hence my nomination as the sources for the 2014 party are seriously lacking. When carrying out a before search it is important to read the details of the sources, which I did, nothing suggests these sources talk about the same party, but I may be wrong. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My use of "of interest" is in the sense of attracting attention and not what I personally find interesting. My apologies if this was not clear, the English language can be a fickle thing sometimes. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the parties. The tags at the Nation suggest they're the same, but that's as likely as not to be an error. Withdrawing my !vote. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Victory (DJ Khaled album). Sandstein 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fed Up (DJ Khaled song)[edit]

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

Another non notable song with no reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victory (DJ Khaled album) as plausible search term. The song didn't receive much coverage on its own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chot- Aj Isko, Kal Tereko[edit]

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

The film fails notability criteria for filims. The only review I could find was by "Times of India", which is already used as a source in the article.

Also, there is no significant coverage of the film in reliable sources, making it fail general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the full review in the Times of India is significant coverage in a reliable source, but at least one more national review is needed to pass WP:NFILM or other rs reviews/significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the debut film of notable model/actress Jesse Randhawa. Undersigned put up few reliable sources of newspaper links like Indian Express and Times of India. Pinakpani (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
even with the newly added sources, it confirms the existence but not notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to Box Office India it seems to have had a wide release in 2004 so there should be archived reviews offline if not online. As well as the full Times of India review hereI did find this other full review from entertainment magazine gkamsham here and with other coverage it just about passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. TOI is a good enough reference and glamsham can also be considered. Considering that the actors are notable (and probably even the director considering he directed a very mainstream movie in Hum Tum Pe Marte Hain and considering he has received press - including a passing mention of the movie in contention in [11]), I think its better to let the article be. Also the fact that the movie is pretty old according to Indian standards and does not have any super stars, there is also the difficulty in finding reliable online sources. Deletion should ideally serve some purpose (weeding out promotion etc), and I am inclined to WP:AGF on this. Jupitus Smart 18:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kya Tum[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie is released in October 2018 and has references for evidence of same. You can check one of the references ^[1]

References

^ "Kya Tum: This October Get Ready For A New Sensational Murder Mystery!". koimoi.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The plethora of unreliable (read=blog, tabloid) sources outnumber the reliable sources; the latter is represented only by Times of India, but that is a one line synopsis. The topic unfortunately lacks the depth and persistence of coverage required to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. ——SerialNumber54129 16:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can check the following reference for in-depth coverage ^[1]

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) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Vidarte[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable entrepreneur. Does not meet WP:BIO; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/TH_Godrick with no other contributions outside this topic. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accomplished award winning business creator. 52 references show much more notability than most Olympic athletes (deemed auto notable) pageant winners who regularly get articles for single title wins. If we are going to delete businessperson articles like this, why not just prohibit all pages on businesspeople or businesses and reserve Wikipedia for entertainers like football players (get an article for playing in a single professional game) and the like. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Forbes 30 under 30 is an example of notability but this page badly needs to be neutralized and copy edited as the templates say.Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: "30 under 30" is a trivial award. Re: notability of Olympic athletes, that should be discussed at WP:NSPORT and has no bearing on this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are all about the companies >80%. 30 under 30, is meaningless, and utterly promotional. Forbes produces, I think it is 1470 x under y lists per year, of one sort or another. It is promotional and Non RS. The references are a mix of press releases, churnalism and trade papers, plain business reporting rags, plain churnalism. On top of that I vaguely remember an article of this type, being deleted already, re: the electricity generation by plants. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forbes 30 under 30 is certainly not trivial and is not just judged by editors at Forbes but by many notable business people. This article may need some clean up, but as of this moment this is a clear keep. Also, why do people that post nothing about business try to delete all of these articles? Also, yes Forbes produces many lists but those lists are mostly made by contributors/guests -- Forbes 30 under 30 is not one of them! User:vanmodhe(talk) 13:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKSTRIKE, please see User:Vanmodhe. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo article not showing a clear indication o person's notability.--Darwinek (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Promotional and references are mostly on company, which would be, otherwise, not-notable too. The comments on Olympic athletes are irrelevant, if a flaw is found with the notability of the athletes, that discussion should not be brought here. --1l2l3k (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead Drunk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No claims of notabiity, references are not reliable sources, can only find one film review on a blog Rogermx (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible that there's more sourcing out there, but I can't find even a whisper of anything that could show that this coverage exists. As far as I can tell, this is an indie film that released and just failed to get the necessary coverage needed to pass NFILM. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Street, Toronto[edit]

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

A smaller, redundant version of Queen Street (Toronto), was useful when Queen Street (Toronto) was a redirect, Queen Street (Toronto) is the preferred name per WP:CONSISTENCY . Queen Street, Toronto should become a redirect. The neighbourhood is known as Queen West (or West Queen West) and not Queen Street, so this article shouldn't be changed to talk about the neighbourhood. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @BrandonXLF: It looks like you attempted to redirect and were reverted, then brought this directly to AfD. Since using AfD for settling content disputes is a reason for speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT, can you please clarify why this should be handled at AfD rather than article talk pages or other dispute resolution venues? Bakazaka (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: This has nothing to do with that. I improperly closed the move proposal (I was the nominator). My edits were reverted because of that. I'm nominating this because I realize my edit I did would (that was reverted) would require a RfD. To clarify, the the revert of my edit had nothing to do with this article, but it had to do wit the improper closure of the move request, and I think a AfD is necessary anyways. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonXLF: Then what is preventing a merge/redirect right now? Bakazaka (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: There's no consensus to have it done. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrandonXLF: But you're not actually proposing deletion. If the merge/redirect is uncontroversial, you don't need AfD, since you can be bold and do it. If the merge/redirect is controversial, then you have a content dispute that should not be settled at AfD. Either way, it's unclear why this is at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I'll do that. I'll withdraw this AfD then.– BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tana Joseph[edit]

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

Per WP:N. While her resume is remarkable, a lack of significant coverage in independent third party sources makes me the subject is not notable enough yet for her own WP:BLP. Comatmebro (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Going places but WP:TOOSOON. The Newton International Fellowship is semi-prestigious, but doesn't make notability in its own right (40 awarded per year). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with OP and Elmidae. Subject is clearly a rising star (pun intended) in her field, but not yet to the levels required by WP:BIO.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 20:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a fair amount of biographical information around, but it is not independent of the subject, as it is provided by the organisations she works for. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Buzan[edit]

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

I have no idea how this has survived so long, the main claim to notability is unsourced and hyperbolic, the sources for the article lack reliability and intellectual independence, all seem to be affiliated in some way, apart form the patent filings, which can't establish notability. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not rise to the level required by WP:NBIO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably survived so long because he's notable. Had a BBC TV series in the 1970s, was nominated for a Nobel Prize in 2011, his books have sold millions of copies, and has enough coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) Further articles on Buzan found via the British Newspaper Aarchive from the Liverpool Echo from 1986 and two from the Irish Independent from 2002. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, well done! Guy (Help!) 11:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UnitedStatesian: Pinging to see what you think about the sources Michig posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote above based on some of the sources unearthed by @Michig: (though noting that one is a press release, and that a newspaper that mentions "nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" shows ignorance of how that process works. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the good work done by Michig above. Andrew D. (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buckaroo Banzai (character)[edit]

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

Ten years ago, after the last Talk page entry was a discussion that noted this article had been tagged as In-universe, the tag was apparently removed and no work has been done on the article. Only now was the tag put it back: In-universe is affecting the Biography and Other media sections. The remaining section "Further adventures" duplicates information already found in the main article. But this entire article is unneeded. It is unreferenced except for two refs in the lead, and those do not appear to provide material to this article. —Prhart com♥ 19:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Vorbee (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the WP:OR there's nothing to merge; it duplicates information already found in the main article. —Prhart com♥ 12:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Wysong[edit]

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

Unsourced, not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. No significant reliable source coverage to meet any standard of notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that USA Today states that he used a pen name. Also, active over a decade ago, ergo, archive searches are essential. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the pen name, I missed that. That completely changes the search results - striking delete vote above. PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEYMANN] I want first to note that Nom and editor writing above give no indication of being aware that this author used a pen name, although A. Frank Steward is a useful search term, turning up book reviews and articles that do not appear in searches on his actual name. note also that neither editor above gave any indication of having run news archive searches, although it is a truth universally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, authors will be notable only for a few years around the publication of their more popular books. Wysong/Steward published books between 2001 and 2008. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Part of what is GREAT - and user friendly - about Wikipedia is that you can look up the popular writers of yore, when you stumble into one. We KEEP writers like Louise Hall Tharp, Elaine Macmann Willoughby, Wilfrid S. Bronson, and Mary Nash (author) - even though nobody reads them anymore. (end of rant) WP:HEY, I have added some material, sources to the page, more reviews exist and can be added, although I believe that I have added enough to show that it should be kept. Quite a few hits where he is quoted as-an-expert on the air travel experience. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, yeah, this probably started as author PROMO, eons ago. Passes WP:AUTHOR because of the many book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M. Gregory's changes and arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage to say he has received "significant coverage" if you include material under the pen-name. FOARP (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snippy[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF. No new examples provided in the 11 years given to provide new examples. The coverage of what Al Gore said is about what Al Gore said, not the word snippy. wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a WP:COATRACK for the Gore/Bush anecdote; it contains virtually nothing on snippy-ness per se. Redirecting is not really an option, since the word is marginally related to Irritability, but this title also relates marginally to Snip (disambiguation). Cnilep (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Grabiner[edit]

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

Not convinced this biography of a businessman meets WP:GNG. The Telegraph article is not a trivial mention and would count towards notability. Other than that, the coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. I have looked for other sources and seen mentions of Grabiner in the context of Philip Green, but they only appear to be passing mentions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nxt[edit]

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

BaconBach wrote on Talk:Nxt: It's not a notable project (WP:N) and there are literally no references. This does not pass WP:SIGCOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaconBach (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proxy nomination for BaconBach. I have no opinion. MER-C 15:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I too see no RS coverage, and only mentions in bottom-of-the-barrel crypto blogs - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nomination. And not a moment too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)~~ See below for changed !vote. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  Nxt, pronounced "Next," is a "Crypto 2.0" (i.e., next-generation) coin that is among the most powerful of those available. It has one of the most active developer communities and its 2.0 features are among the most commonly used. Nxt features a decentralized marketplace for digital goods, a digital "token" or asset exchange, a monetary system that allows the easy creation of currencies secured on the Nxt blockchain, a messaging system, and an alias system. It is also the flagship coin in the SuperNET system, which combines several blockchains and allows them to communicate.
  These features came out over time since the currency's 2013 release and new features are constantly added. Like Bitcoin's Satoshi Nakamoto, Nxt's creator chose to remain anonymous and went by the name BCNext before disappearing in a fashion similar to Nakamoto.
  Although the Nxt community is one of the coin's strongest assets, it has also proven to be one of its biggest liabilites as well. Early on in its history, the community split for reasons that still aren't clear. This split led to the creation of two message boards, causing confusion for newcomers that persists to this day. There have also been a few scams involving members or former members of the community that further hurt the coin's reputation.
  Nxt has also been subject to a few Bitcoin-style hacks. Although all these have had to do with exchange security or user error more than the security of the coin itself, Nxt is stored entirely online—and the lack of easily stored offline wallets is sometimes blamed for the issue. In 2014, one of Nxt's biggest exchanges, Bter, lost 50 million NXT. The community considered a hard fork to reverse the effects of the hack but decided this wouldn't be fair to people who made legitimate transactions during the time between the hack and the hard fork. It was also thought this would set a bad precedent in the community.
  [Four more paragraphs.]
2. Franco, Pedro (2015). Understanding Bitcoin: Cryptography, Engineering and Economics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-1-119-01916-9. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  12.7.5 Nxt
  
  Nxt uses a different code base than Bitcoin, written from scratch. Nxt also creates its own blockchain, secured using a 100% proof-of-stake system. The main applications of Nxt are a decentralized exchange, voting system, messaging, and DNS.
  Addresses use elliptic curve public key cryptography24. Transactions, and other mes- sages, are registered in the blockchain. Nxt blockchain uses a proof-of-stake algorithm (14.2.1). Nxt assumes that all clients in the network run a full node. Addresses where at least one incoming transaction has been confirmed by 1440 blocks are called unlocked addresses or active accounts. These addresses are eligible to generate the next proof-of- stake block (Nxt wiki, 2014b).
  The native currency of Nxt is NXT, with an initial supply of 1 billion NXTs (Nxt wiki, 2014a). Nxt blocks have a field called the generation signature. Active accounts sign the generation signature with their private key and then hash the signature. If the resulting hash is lower than the target, then the active account can generate the next block, obtaining all the fees. Creating blocks is called forging blocks, in contrast with Bitcoin's mining, which requires computational power. The target for every active account is weighted by the amount of funds in that address (thus the proof-of-stake) and increases (doubles) every second until a node in the network forges the next block. This network target is tuned so that new blocks are forged on average every 60 seconds.
  [Four more paragraphs]
3. Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. p. 170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  NXT: Using Proof-of-Stake for Transaction Consensus
  
  Unlike bitcoin's consensus through mining, NXT (http://nxt.org) uses proof-of-stake to reach a transaction consensus. Additionally, NXT is one of the very few crypto-currencies that has no mining process — all coins were distributed during the launch of this altcoin. Having a steady supply of coins, available at any given time, created a new ecosystem in the world of crypto-currency.
  What makes NXT truly interesting is the fact that any user can create their own crypto-currency within the NXT ecosystem. All newly created coins are backed by NXT currency and can be distributed in a variety of ways.
  In more recent times, NXT has gradually introduced new features such as smart contracts, an arbitary messaging service, and a proper decentralized peer-to-peer exchange platform called MultiGateWay.
4. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  NXT
  
  NXT (pronounced "Next") is a "pure" proof-of-stake alt coin, in that it does not use proof-of-work mining. NXT is a from-scratch implementation of a cryptocurrency, not a fork of bitcoin or any other alt coins. NXT implements many advanced features, including a name registry (similar to Namecoin), a decentralized asset exchange (similar to Colored Coins), integrated decentralized and secure messaging (similar to Bitmessage), and stake delegation (to delegate proof-of-stake to others). NXT adherents call it a "next-generation" or 2.0 cryptocurrency.
  - Block generation: 1 minute
  - Total currency: No limit
  - Consensus algorithm: Proof-of-stake
  - Market capitalization: $30 million in mid-2014
5. Lee, David Kuo Chen; Low, Linda (2018). Inclusive FinTech: Blockchain, Cryptocurrency and ICO. New York: World Scientific. p. 90. ISBN 978-981-3272-76-7. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The book notes:
  
  After the token sale of Mastercoin, NXT started its ICO in September 2013. NXT is the first cryptocurrency that uses purely Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, and it has a static total supply of 1 billion coins. In the ICO, it raised 21 bitcoins that were worth roughly USD17,000. As of September 2, 2017, the price of NXT was around USD0.12, making it the most profitable investment cryptocurrency with a return on investment (ROI) of over 669 times.
6. Ciaiana, Pavel; Rajcaniova, Miroslava; Kancs, d'Artis (January 2018). "Virtual relationships: Short- and long-run evidence from BitCoin and altcoin markets". Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money. 52. Elsevier: 173–195. doi:10.1016/j.intfin.2017.11.001. ISSN 1042-4431. Retrieved 2018-11-21.
  The article notes:
  
  For example, NxT, NEM and SuperNET have distributed all coins at the time when the currency was released, implying a zero-growth rate.
  ...
  Only the prices of Ethereum, NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET are found to be affected by the BitCoin price. Note that only Ethereum and NameCoin are based on the same PoW transaction validation mechanism as BitCoin. NxT applies the PoS mechanism, while SuperNET is a basket of alternative virtual currencies. In terms of the total coin supply, only NameCoin, NxT and SuperNET apply the maximum limit to the coin supply (as BitCoin does) whereas Ethereum has an unlimited coin supply (Table 3).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nxt to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your refbombing is mostly passing mentions at best. Antonopoulos' explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin should not be treated as evidence of notability, same reason we don't treat crypto blogs as evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Skyhorse Publishing-published The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
The John Wiley & Sons-published Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
These two sources are not "passing mentions" or "crypto blogs".
Andreas M. Antonopoulos' book Mastering Bitcoin was published by the reputable publisher O'Reilly Media. According to https://books.google.com/books?id=IXmrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PR4, the book's editors were Mike Loukides and Allyson MacDonald, the book's production editor was Melanie Yarbrough, the book's copyeditor was Kim Cofer, and the book's proofreader was Carla Thornton. The content about Nxt is neutrally written. This book was published by a reputable publisher and had plenty of editorial oversight. I do not consider the book to be an "explicitly promotional work on Bitcoin" (please provide evidence that it is promotional), though even if the source is discounted, the books by Ian DeMartino and Pedro Franco are sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
David Gerard, we're arguing about extant sources and Cunard identified a bunch of them. That's what we're supposed to do in such discussions! It's not "refbombing" by any stretch of the term. The essay on reference overkill is about something else, i.e. about cluttering up the text of existing articles with unnecessary, repetitive, or irrelevant citations. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Cunard's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found. This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources found. – significant coverage about Nxt in multiple book sources have been presented.
This had been deleted 3 times in previous AFDS some of which were created with different names, i think once deleted it should be SALTED – this is not a policy-based reason for deletion.
PlotHelpful has 66 edits in total. PlotHelpful made their first edits in January 2017 and made no further edits until 22 November 2018.
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, looks a perfectly reasonable and policy-based opinion to me - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PlotHelpful's comment says "No reliable sources found" but does not explain why these two are not reliable sources:

The Bitcoin Guidebook book by Ian DeMartino and published by the Skyhorse Publishing which provides eight paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.
The Understanding Bitcoin book by Pedro Franco and published by the John Wiley & Sons which provides seven paragraphs of coverage about Nxt.

Cunard (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article, as it now stands, contains precisely zero references. (There is a section it it, titled "References," which stands empty of content.) And that's almost two weeks after the article has been nominated for deletion. It would be great to see some or all of the sources Cunard dug up worked into the article and then decide if it's worth staying up. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all of the sources I presented here to the article except for the contested Andreas M. Antonopoulos source.
Cunard (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the brief mentions in articles about bitcoin as substantial enough for this to be notable or beyond a run-of-the-mill cryptocurrency website. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot in all honesty reject the evidence of notability in the sources provided by Cunard. I notice that there has been no attempt to refute them but only blanket dismissals, with the accusation of "refbombing" to boot, which is absurd given that looking for references (and as many as possible) in an AfD debate is precisely what we're supposed to do. No matter how one feels about cryptocurrencies, this article now has the prerequisites to stay up. -The Gnome (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position, The Gnome (talk · contribs). I greatly appreciate it. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the 15 paragraphs of coverage in the Skyhorse Publishing and John Wiley & Sons books (among other sources), here are more sources about the subject:
- Popov, Serguei (December 2016). "A Probabilistic Analysis of the Nxt Forging Algorithm". Ledger. 1. D-Scribe Digital Publishing: 69–83. doi:10.5195/LEDGER.2016.46. ISSN 2379-5980. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
- "Call for evidence: Investment using virtual currency or distributed ledger technology" (PDF). European Securities and Markets Authority. 2015-04-22. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
  Here is information about the report:
  ESMA has been monitoring and analysing virtual currency investment over the last 6 months, to understand developments in the market, potential benefits or risks for investors, market integrity or financial stability, and to support the functioning of the EU single market.
  ESMA’s analysis is set out in this paper. ESMA is seeking to share its analysis in order to promote wider understanding of innovative market developments, and invites market participants and other stakeholders to submit feedback and any additional information on the following topics: ...
  The report notes:
  With NXT, another VC, every user can be assigned the role to validate or “forge” NXT. One difference between bitcoin and NXT is that all NXTs exist already, as opposed to bitcoins of which around 2/3 of the final amount of bitcoin exists today. Users of NXT can earn NXT by forging. Forging fulfils essentially the same role for NXT as mining does for bitcoins, i.e. validating a set of transactions, only that rewards are not new NXT but the transaction fees contained in each block. Also, the process is different in the sense that the competitive set-up of validating bitcoin transactions requires a lot more computing power than the allocative set-up of validating NXT transactions. The processing of a block takes 1-1.5 minutes and the recommended confirmation time is 10 blocks, i.e. 10- 15 minutes.
  ...
  975 shares and other assets have been created and transacted so far via Colored Coin and NXT. Since the start of NXTs asset exchange in May 2014 around 50 new assets have been created each month.
  ...
  The benefit of cost and speed equally holds for issuers in terms of listing an asset on an asset exchange. In the case of the NXT asset exchange, a listing currently costs 1000 NXT (currently around 10 Euro) one-off plus transaction costs when sending rewards to investors.
That the peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger (a journal published by the University of Pittsburgh's D-Scribe Digital Publishing that is dedicated to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology research) covered Nxt's forging algorithm in an extensive article and that the EU regulatory agency European Securities and Markets Authority covered Nxt in a report further establishes it is notable.
Here are more sources:
1. Finberg, Ron (2014-01-09). "Digital Currencies 2.0: Meet NXT, the 'Next' Ripple". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
2. Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-21). Gaunt, Jeremy (ed.). "Bitcoin competitor NXT in modest start to trade vs the dollar". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
3. Jacobsen, Stine; Zawadzki, Sabina (2014-07-18). Walker, Sophie (ed.). "Danish virtual bourse to trade NXT 'cryptocurrency' for real money". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
4. Mizrahi, Avi (2017-09-14). "BNP Paribas and Accenture Spain Test Nxt Blockchain Technology". Finance Magnates. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
5. Haines, Lester (2014-11-20). "NXT: The first SPAAAACE cryptocurrency". The Register. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
6. Wienberg, Christian (2014-07-18). "Bitcoin Is Challenged as Danish Bourse Offers NXT Trading". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
7. Bjorøy, Trond Vidar (2017-09-21). "Ardor could fix key blockchain weaknesses — if it can get its message out". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2018-11-27. Retrieved 2018-11-27.
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. I've been keeping an eye on this AFD. The two longest book sources above are probably okay for notability, though not as strong as the coverage primarily dedicated to Nxt. I was aware of the ESMA report since it's mentioned in the article. Just those might not be good enough but combined with the newest ones posted it is. Ranking from best to worst: Ledger, Reuters/Bloomberg, The Register, Finance Magnates ("formerly Forex Magnates" Did they change their name because of cryptocurrency?), then VentureBeat which is labelled as a "guest" post (would be better than FM if it wasn't). Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Is VB "guest" another word for "advertorial blog"? - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Ledger article, Reuters quotes and two books above meet the requirements of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, notwithstanding that some of the others are obvious trash.AlasdairEdits (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of influential Muslims of the 16th Century[edit]

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

Unclear inclusion criteria ... "influential", lacks sourcing. WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Each name should have a citation next to it, but I thought the idea of this list seems sound, I see nothing wrong with it other than failing to have no citations per name. Govvy (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename and describe inclusion criteria. It could be an interesting list, but seems to be largely royalty/aristocracy - it doesn't include several people in the List of pre-modern Arab scientists and scholars, for example, including a jurist and theologian, a geographer, a qadi and historian, a physician, mathematician, clockmaker and astronomer, and an Islamic scholar and mystic. There are several other lists of Muslim scientists and scholars which also include 16th century notables, who could surely be called 'influential'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid encyclopedic topic, passes WP:NLIST, sources are easy to find in the individual articles so current sourcing is not a reason to delete, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't generally cross-categorise based on religion and we certainly don't for people being "influential". Who gets to decide who is influential? Ajf773 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps rename. The inclusion criteria, while perhaps not explicit, are implied by the section titles. This is a List of 16th-century office holders in the Islamic world. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad and ill-defined. Daughters and most (though not all) of the wives of sultans weren't particularly "influential", religious leaders already have their own list (List of 16th-century religious leaders#Islam), Ottoman sultans don't really need a sublist of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Influential" is an arbitrary and subjective criteria for inclusion. If one deleted that word, it is basically just a category intersection. I don't see what value a list adds to categories in this very broad case. SJK (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists of people by religion by century are just too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of pashas, princesses and religious leaders - these are some of the subheads. "influential" is far to vague a definition for a List. many names are not bluelinked, but even if all of the non-bluelinked ones were deleted, clicking on some of the names leaves me puzzles ad to what makes some of them "influential" - the sole sourced statements regarding Ismihan Sultan is that she bore two sons and that, according to a legend, she "suffered" in her marriage. We have already a list of List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire. Mostly, I'm just wondering how we ope rationalize "influential."E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this mess of WP:OR and WP:NPOV about some alleged "influence" that is offered unsupported. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is "Influenital"?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 21:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless a source can be found for such a list, it fails WP:LISTN. There is in fact an article on an annual publication The 500 Most Influential Muslims, but without a source for a list for 16th century, it looks like WP:OR. Hzh (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Gibson[edit]

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

Time for another AfD, as GRG fanboys flooded the previous AfD after some off-wiki canvassing. This article is absolutely rife with irrelevant cruft, even more so than most other pages in this topic (which is truly an achievement), and once stripped of that it's the same old "she lived a long time, she died". WP:NOPAGE. Maybe a minibio, but certainly not a full article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article blatantly fails WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was widowed for 50 years, lived in the same home for 80 years, was in a commercial advertisement, and the standard longevity secret. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the three lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just living a long time does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage - only in-state newspaper reports of her birthdays until after she died. Does not meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence of independent notability provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Roberts Gillan[edit]

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

People article is only one paragraph about famous people’s siblings; her “notability” is only derived from family members. I can’t find significant coverage / reliable sources for herself and career. Trillfendi (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - her numerous film roles are not significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. Argento Surfer

Keep - She is an important member of an important family and she is also an actress in her own right. What the page needs in more info, not deletion. User:Don Macleay (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’re gonna be hard pressed to find it, and even if you do, all “notability” still falls on Julia. (And 10 of her “roles” were in Julia’s films and tv appearances for what it’s worth.)Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find a review that gave significant consideration to her in a non-family sense. She can't inherit notability so can't qualify that way. She is rather google unfriendly (since her sister blocks out most consideration, but is always mentioned so can't be cut out). Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowfax Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Google search threw back their fundraising and advertorial. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever, just press releases and similar articles. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than a fluff piece padded with information about their funding. Zero actual notability available in WP:RS. A quick search of the article creator's name indicates an obvious WP:COI, so this might be a WP:CSD#G11 candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for G11 (& twice previously deleted G11) but Atlantic306 disagreed. Still, it'll be useful to have A4 available the next time it comes back. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Sounds like this is Advertising or SoapBoxing more than anything. IanDBeacon (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising Skirts89 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NCORP as per nom Spiderone 19:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising misterpottery (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just native advertising. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. PlotHelpful (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Barnes[edit]

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

He fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple significant coverage from secondary reliable sources (the second reference in the article is not SIGCOV at all) and WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles in notable films or shows. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is non-notable. Skirts89 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a bunch of minor roles does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: R#Reaper. Content can be merged from history subject to consensus. Sandstein 19:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper (Gunther Strauss)[edit]

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

This fictional character is not notable independent of Marvel Comics and insignificant within the fiction itself. There are three incoming links from article space, and none of them are inline. An IP removed my PROD and added a merge template pointing to List of Marvel Comics characters: R, but that list is not intended to be exhaustive. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics characters: R or maybe List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. One RS is more than what most of these minor characters have, so a brief note on this guy somewhere seems like it would be a good idea. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. I don't see even one secondary reliable source. Everything about this character comes directly from Marvel Comics. As such, there's no way it meets the requirements for a standalone article. A two-sentence mention in the list of characters is about the limit, in my judgement. There's some trivia about this character on the web in fanwikis, and that's where it belongs, not in an encyclopedia. Amsgearing (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City" was apparently published by Pocket Books. BOZ (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge per BOZ~~ withdrawing !vote Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - aside from the fact that one non-primary source is used to cite a plot element, what is the value of adding this character to a list? As far as I can tell, he's appeared in exactly two comic books published by Marvel, a company that routinely published 60+ books per month for most of its 75 years of existence. There are zero inline links to the page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Music Rights[edit]

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

Article was a draft article submitted by an editor with a conflict of interest. Since creation the article has largely relied upon press releases as references and once given a cleanup leaves very little else to demonstrate notability. Longhair\^talk 14:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find any sources outside of press releases. If those PRs are accurate, this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per WP:TOOSOON, trivial and reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to his LinkedIn listing^[2] the CEO and founder of Pro Music Rights is only 19 years old and graduated from high school in 2018 which makes it highly unlikely his company is the third biggest performing rights organization in the USA^[3] yet.

PhilipCowan (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite probable that it's the third biggest PRO in the US, seeing as there were really only two in operation before 2018, and it's only the fifth in history. Whether there are enough in-depth sources about a company that's only been in existence for a few months is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. Just press releases and nothing to make out of notability. PlotHelpful (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too new, fails WP:NORG, sources as mentioned above are PRish or do not significantly cover the subject. JC7V (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GNG not supported by keep votes. Editor's are reminded that, per WP:NRIVALRY, the notion of a rivalry must rreceive significant coverage in a number of third party sources. It is not enough simply for the name to be mentioned in match reporting. It is also highly unlikely that a genuine rivalry garnering such coverage would materialise after only a small number of games and recreation. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Is Real[edit]

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

No evidence that this single game was notable. Nothing out iof the ordinary happened, and no titles were decided. Just a routine cup game between two teams that happen to be located nearish to each other. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic draws nearly quadruple, if not quintuple the amount of web results compared to a routine match between teams, and about 7 or 8 times the amount of traffic to a typical U.S. Open Cup game, which meets WP:NOTABLE. Further, the phrase and terminology has received extensive third party coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill cup game between two local sides. Citations/links are WP:ROUTINE coverage.Dougal18 (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that FC Cincinnati is in MLS, this will become a regular rivalry, played (likely) three times per year. It already has quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV to help it meet WP:GNG, and should continue to get more as it is played in the future. I plan on rewriting the page in the near future to better reflect that this wasn't just a one-off match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But it was a one-off match. They have played one time. And if we end up with separate articles for USL Cincinnati and MLS Cincinnati, it will remain a one-off match forever from a WP perspective as any future games will involve a different Cincinnati entity. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, as of "right now" it is a one-off match, but they will be playing more times in the future (barring the unlikely event (at this point) that the Crew aren't sold). And even if we do end up with separate articles for the two clubs, the rivalry would still be contained under one article: Portland Timbers–Seattle Sounders rivalry, Canadian Classique, and Heritage Cup (MLS) are just some of the MLS rivalries that also include rivalry matches from "previous eras" in one or both clubs' histories. We would still include the 2017 match under the Hell is Real banner, just with the note in prose that it occurred during "FC Cincinnati's USL era". The argument of this one has to be over the coverage – not over the status of the match. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be better to discuss this on the talk page, but I will wait until I know whether the article is deleted or kept. All I'll say now is that I'm concerned that WP:CRYSTALBALLing might make a delete more likely.Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and has no substantial coverage after the fact. Wait until a few rivalry matches are played before trying to revive this one. Sounder Bruce 00:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not convinced by GNG arguments. Coverage seems run-of-the-mill to me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect Not real convinced that this meets WP:GNG right now but it seems likely that this will become more clearly notable once Cincinnati actually begins play in MLS. There's also not a very clear redirect except for maybe 2017 U.S. Open Cup#Fourth Round, so that might work. The information is also mostly in the respective teams' articles as well. Jay eyem (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON without prejudice on recreation. The match itself isn't notable, but the rivalry will almost certainly become notable with the new Cincinnati MLS team if Columbus don't end up moving. SportingFlyer talk 23:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can the supporters of this article please do something about the coloring of the text and background in the "Results" section? The blue text on a red background is hard to read. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Add six months and this will pass WP:GNG as a rivalry because Cincinnati will have played Columbus in MLS. The two teams and the MLS are desperate to call this an in-state rivalry, and WP:RS will enthusiastically cooperate. Put it on the back burner to allow 21.colinthompson and others improve it so that it's ready for mainspace early in the 2019 MLS season. It will save the effort of re-writing it. Yes, it can be WP:REFUNDed, but I've been around long enough to know that is not what happens, then we have history merge and so on, along with the risk of misattribution. It's more efficient to move to draft and move back later. If the "Hell Is Real" name becomes stale, or is applied to the first game but not the rivalry, then the draft can be moved to whatever people commonly call it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Lee[edit]

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

Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. A minor role in a single Broadway production does not meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is not even clear her one noted role is actualty significant, but multiple significant roles in notable productions are required.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viewen[edit]

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

Essentially identical to Draft:Viewen that has correctly been rejected twice due to insufficient references, failing notability. Editing pattern of the author also suggests possibility of undeclared paid editing or COI/promo editing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:CORP. Lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing out there as far as significant coverage so fails WP:NCORP by a mile. Would also suggest locking the page from creation since the creator is so intent on disrupting Wikipedia (posting this to the mainspace despite it being declined twice at AfC). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of satisfying notability guidelines. Clearly some sort of COI editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Creator has been banned Daiyusha (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has subsequently been blocked, not banned, and was not evading a block or ban at the time the article was created. WP:G5 speedy deletion ("pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block") is therefore not applicable, and I have declined it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Sandstein 19:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Weaver[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOPAGE. Consists entirely of longevity fancruft. Suggest redirecting to an appropriate list. E Eng 12:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. Of the three lists featuring her, this one has the most specific information. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable WP:GNG with with articles in the Washington Post and The Guardian demonstrating national and international notability. The argument for deletion is "Consists entirely of longevity fancruft", but the contents of the article is from the Washington Post etc. The reason we have criteria for notability is you can't build and encyclopedia on I just don't like it arguments or I like it arguments. -- Unsigned comment by someone
You haven't addressed the basis for the nomination, which isn't notability but rather WP:NOPAGE. The single face that is even arguably nontrivial -- that she was the child of sharecroppers -- can go in a list entry. E Eng 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, after the American Civil war, slavery was transformed in part into sharecropping. She wasn't merely the child of sharecroppers, but was born into sharecropping and all the hardships that brought. Having been one of the oldest African American women to have ever lived, there is a reasonable expectation that even more detail about her life will be published in reliable sources. It is also a huge challenge for Wikipedia to expand and maintain articles on women and minorities.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't addressing the NOPAGE argument. E Eng 05:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that she deserves an article because of her family's profession of sharecropping is absurd. Farming has always been a tough industry to make a livelihood in and there were countless millions of sharecroppers, and no one deserves an article based on their gender or race, least of all to make other people feel good or righteous. Your argument is pure WP:ILIKEIT. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is pure WP:I don't like it. You have no idea what sharecropping is, it was not a profession it was slavery for blacks in the South. You also need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. @ENG, first the NOPAGE is not a policy and not a reason to delete a page, it is a consideration when creating an article. Nevertheless, I did address your concerns.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course NOPAGE isn't policy; none of the notability guidelines are policy -- they're guidelines. And if you can't see that a consideration when creating an article is therefore equally a consideration when deleting an article, then I don't think further discussion will be productive. E Eng 18:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have thousands of articles on athletes, for example, which don't meet NOPAGE. NOPAGE's weight when compared to GNG and that this is an article about a black woman, gives NOPAGE zero weight. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, plus you clearly still don't understand that NOPAGE has nothing to do with notability. And you better fucking think twice before pulling the race bullshit again, because I've had just about enough of it. But what's wrong with me? Why am I bothering? As predicted, further discussion isn't productive. E Eng 19:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take a deep breath and relax and don't make assumptions about other's intentions. The problem is that non-white people and women are disproportionately under represented in Wikipedia. For example, Bernice Madigan is also under consideration for deletion and she was white. Currently, it is less likely that her article will be deleted than this one even though she is clearly less notable and there is even less to write about her. I would never accuse you of racial and gender bias, but I do think that it is important to consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions when there is a known bias Wikipedia coverage.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't "consider race and gender as one factor in deletion decisions". We consider the sources available. Bernice Madigan is equally a NOPAGE case. E Eng 01:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect This article blatantly fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like her health history, her family tree, standard longevity secret, and glorification of claimed records. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the four lists they already reside on. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as none of the sources talk about her in any meaningful depth. She was born and raised in unfortunate circumstances and made a decent life out of it, which is certainly nice but not itself notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find much coverage of her - even when she became the oldest American, it was reported nationally in the US, but using a single Associated Press report, so she doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Other than that, coverage seems mostly to be local. There is the Time article, but still not multiple sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Central Square, Ballarat[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Not able to find significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Longhair\^talk 14:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom, fails WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a run of the mill shopping centre. Nothing notable about it. Ajf773 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of very ordinary very routine commercial references / mentions but nothing at all to indicate notability. Just another one of thousands of typical shopping centres. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of the type of coverage in the article and through internet searches that is needed to show notability for similar articles shows that this mall fails to pass the guidelines for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Javaid Anwar[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Now there thousands of poets.Not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future self[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is more than covered at Self-concept and anything not can probably be merged however this is a massive essay and what I'd expect to see handed into a teacher and not a Wikipedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reverted this back to the redirect to Self-concept as an unneeded fork. The original author reverted again but later moved it to draft before moving it back to main space less than 3 hours later with no good explanation. It is a wholesale duplication of Self concept. Self concept has benefited from the contributions of a wide range of editors. This is significantly less well written, attempts to cover the same ground, but reads like a college level thesis. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The contemporary psychological research on the future self is not covered on the self-concept page. The psychological theories and applications are distinct and the psychological literatures for the two topics have essentially no overlap. The sources of the future self article are entirely from top peer-reviewed psychology and consumer behavior journals. I am a new contributor and will edit the article to have encyclopedic style. I wrote on both your talk pages explaining why I reverted your redirects. I am greatly looking forward to improving this article and appreciate your input. JSRpsych (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC) — JSRpsych (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Self-concept because both terms are notable. desmay (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and the nomination provides no reason to delete. The self-concept article is broader in that it covers the past, present and future. That article is quite large and so it is reasonable to cover one of these aspects in detail per WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT. Andrew D. (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per OP's well-reasoned rationale. Maybe merge some of the contents if they're not redundant and are properly sourced/written. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/selective merge while this article is quite large, its length is partially due to its constant repetition of the same claims over and over again, as well as its detailed presentation of multiple different studies that all have very similar results. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reading through both Future self and Self-concept, the former seems like a valid independent subject. Merging the two would result in issues with undue weight. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the claim that Self-concept covers this subject is utter fantasy. The body of the article does not have the word future anywhere in it. Alright, the lead has four mentions of future self in it, so presumably the article is supposed to include this subject, but it actually doesn't. Having said that, Future self is horribly essay-like and needs a lot of cleanup. Possibly there should only be one article, but a lot of work and thought needs to go into that first. It won't be resolved at this AfD. SpinningSpark 00:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon A. Landry[edit]

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

fails WP: NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (being a conference First Team does not meet it), no sources suggesting that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nairanjana Dasgupta[edit]

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

Is an accomplished statistician, but not exactly "Notable". Her main achievements are: 1) Being named a Fellow of American Statistical Association. 2) Named "Boeing" Distinguished Professor of Math and Science at WSU. Daiyusha (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as article creator on the basis that there is no evidence that the nominator has any familiarity with our academic notability criteria. Best to just withdraw this nomination before wasting more editor time with it. Criterion #C1: multiple papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar, check. Criterion #C3: fellow of a major scholarly society for which this is a significant honor, check. Criterion #C5: named and distinguished professorship at a major university, double check. Only one would be enough. In fact the nomination statement describes two out of three of these but without any apparent recognition of their significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool handshakes[edit]

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

Article is about a specific use of handshakes, but there's no reason to have it be a separate article from handshake. I could see some content being merged to there, but it's not really well-written enough to be worth it. Sdkb (talk) 06:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No idea why this even exists, it looks like the work of a new editor who couldn't think of a good article topic. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and there's nothing here worth merging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nathan. Remagoxer (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nathan. Also, this would be impossible to write WP:NPOV as well, as there are no rules on what makes a handshake cool. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 12:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:LakesideMiners is clearly unfamiliar with Stewart's test. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Argento Surfer, is that sarcasm? LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is!. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G11. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LetsBab[edit]

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

New business that fails WP:GNG, as it has not yet attracted attention in secondary sources. Sdkb (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one could likely be speedied. There is nothing out there as far as reliable coverage in secondary sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't in anyway pass GNG and WP:RS. @CNMall41: i concur it could have been speedy delete, no need bringing it here. ShunDream (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Went ahead and marked for G11, nothing here worth salvaging. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cardano (platform)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionably notable blockchain platform/cryptocurrency. For the past few weeks some editors have been adding material, and other have been removing it due to poor sourcing. It seems probable that no reliable sources exist, in which the topic does not pass the general notability guidelines. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, all the sources I can find are just price info from various cryptocurrency tracking websites. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 07:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - it's an interesting project with some good coverage, but only in the crypto blogs - nothing in RSes for notability. A quintessential WP:TOOSOON at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should remain for several reasons. My main reason is that when I looked-up this topic I couldn't find a page offering rudimentary infos. Wikipedia is not printed on paper. Even as a Stub article should remain, due to the circumstance that Cardano is listed consistently in the Top10 at https://coinmarketcap.com That primarily scene sources write about the topic should not be used as an exclusion argument. Many of the articles on the topic appear to be listed at Google News, which is at least an indicator for some sort of establishment. prokaryotes (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a policy-based reason. Do you have RSes, and not just crypto blogs? - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I last edited the page it looked like this, contained references to Forbes or Bloomberg, among a couple of other scene posts. prokaryotes (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Forbes is a contributor blog. I added the Bloomberg mention (that the price peaked at the top of the crypto bubble) - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - reliability and notability-conferring of the Daily Dot is questionable, and this piece in particular seriously reads like an advertisement - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added "not a ballot" - the previous AFD was trashed by a flood of SPAs - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best I can find is several mentions in Bloomberg articles. Example: Up to Two-Thirds of Bitcoin Transactions Have No Economic Value which only says "At one point, 98 percent of transactions on the digital token Cardano had no economic value, Coinmetrics said." No good for notability. @Prokaryotes: As I'm writing this Cardano is no longer in the top 10. It's about 5 million less than Monero and because of Bitcoin Cash forking there is now "Bitcoin SV" at #9 which puts Cardano at #11. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sdkb (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Kent[edit]

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

Non-notable person from the distant past who isn't mentioned anywhere on the internet that I can tell except for an Oxford Dictionary article where she is used as an example of a category. Sdkb (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A quick google search shows 6 books with information about Marion Kent, not including the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. References and additional information can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RebeccaGreen:There are books that reference people named Marion Kent, but all of those seem to be referring to people in the 1800s or 1900s. This article is about someone who died in 1500. On some further Googling, she does seem to be mentioned in three books, but I'm not sure whether any of them would count for GNG as a non-trivial mention. - Sdkb (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I googled "Marion Kent" 1478. All the references I found were definitely about the subject of the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A DNB entry has always been seen as an indicator that an individual has sufficient notability for Wikipedia per WP:ANYBIO #3. Our inclusion criteria are far wider than theirs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #3, as argued above, and the availability of additional sourcing. Multiple scholarly publications comment upon Marion Kent as an unusual case for her society and time period. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a person from the distant past who isn't mentioned on the internet seems a particularly strong reason for having an article. Anyway, the claim is wrong. ODNB (on the internet) has a lot more information and I found a book on Google books with a paragraph about her and several other books with mentions. (Try "marion kent" "york" -"new york" in Google books). Passes GNG anyway. Thincat (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Alfred Gaskell[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a Titanic victim. –dlthewave ☎ 03:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dont see anything in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson Beattie[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; very little coverage beyond being a victim of the Titanic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's pretty clear from the sources themselves that this person does not have individual notability. If we have a longer article collecting Titanic passengers, some of this could live there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AUDEH OverDose[edit]

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

Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources cited and doesn't meet general notability. ShunDream (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also source 6 seems to be a site for downloading music and looks illegal. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 19:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Recordings[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Page's only references are self-published sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional - quoting exactly from the lede "WE’RE AN ARTIST MANAGEMENT COMPANY, A RECORD LABEL, A BOOKING AGENCY, A CONCERT PRODUCER AND A PROMOTION & PUBLICITY AGENCY." yuck Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so promotional. This looks like it could be tagged with WP:G11.LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 13:27, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably created by an employee of the studio and it's just one puff piece. Couldn't find any reliable sources from GNEWS and i believe this subject meets WP:G11. ShunDream (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of sources and as noted above , promotionalistism of it make this a delete for me. JC7V (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blockchain#Uses. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain game[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Blockchain game" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Vague rambling around a neologism rather than a common term found in RSes. This has never been a coherent article. It's also a spam magnet - this is the version culled of the worst spammy bad cites. (Previous version here.) Of the remaining four references, one is a marketing blog for a consultant firm, and two of the RS sources don't even mention the supposed genre. Declined PROD asserting notability of the neologism, but without providing evidence. David Gerard (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the nomination rational focuses too much on the term "blockchain game" rather than the topic. Even if the term is a neologism that fails to appear in RSes, the concept of "Blockchains in gaming" could still be notable (I would be open to moving the page, but do not feel strongly either way). That said, I agree that the CNBC and Fortune sources are irrelevant. Both provide in-depth coverage of CryptoKitties, but more from the perspective of collectibles -- neither article discusses blockchain games generally. We certainly have not demonstrated notability. I'm having trouble finding nontrivial coverage in RSes, but would be open to reconsidering my position if someone else found some. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on blockchain games other than Cryptokitties. I'd suggest merging it into Cryptokitties, but if there isn't anything in blockchain games other than Cryptokitties, it would just weigh down that article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). Using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, it doesn't look like there's such a thing as a "blockchain game" as genre, like adventure game but blockchain technology is used in games.
- GamesIndustry.biz: "Ubisoft, Fig, other companies form Blockchain Gaming Alliance" and "EON Foundation raises $5 million for blockchain game publishing"
- Gamasutra: "Ubisoft details its blockchain-powered game HashCraft"
- GameZebo: "Age of Rust is a forthcoming Enjin Coin-backed blockchain game with its own rental market"
- US Gamer: "Blockchain and You: What Does Blockchain Even Do for Video Games?" soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can we get a second opinion to whether these sources are reliable? I am not familiar with gaming news. BenKuykendall (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are part of WP:VG/RS -- consensus vetted to be reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:NUKE per WP:NEOLOGISM. This is not a standard term sources use, so the article title should not pretend to be. Something like aforementioned blockchains in video games would be appropriately neutral. It seems there are sources that discuss the concept sufficiently to pass the WP:GNG mark with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. My only concern is that such an article does not become an WP:EXAMPLEFARM of drive-by game mentions with no context. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It'll be an ill-cited example farm and spam magnet within minutes - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And all that sound like "delete this article, start a different article". Which, fine - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdrew my !vote for deletion per the sources found by User:Soetermans. These articles do provide significant coverage, and the folks at WP:VG vouched for their reliability. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several blockchain games exist in the market. And we can google for it. Joeccho (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeccho:, WP:ITEXISTS is not an argument. Also, your first edit is a keep vote. That's never a good sign. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans:, Previously I participate in another language of wikipedia, and mostly participate anonymously. Joeccho (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like consensus is verging towards deleting or re-purposing the article, but it's not clear yet. Hopefully another week can fix this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned above, is a neologism and the page currently has nothing on what a "blockchain game" is. There may be uses of blockchain in games, but the content in the article right now is just about Cryptokitties. Either merge the content with Cryptokitties, or make a an article ABOUT blockchain in games, BUT blockchain games are not a thing. Application of blockchain IS a thing though. DudeTheNinja ( speak to me | spy on me ) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, purge and rename to blockchain in video games (or whatever title is appropriate). The technology itself are notable, but the name itself are not. Joeccho (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that different to "delete" and creating a new article? - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Blockchain#Uses, but create a section called Video games so it stands out in the table of contents. As more info is added, it can be forked out to a standalone article. Right now there's just not enough - so WP:TOOSOON TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Stanley's House[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just mentioned in passing in WP:VG/RS'es, no in-depth coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised this was not deleted completely with the copyvio G12 issues. Nothing remarable here to justify a page. Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete All the contents are from the designer of this game, 雪夜公爵. They are believable. zhangshiqq (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note zhangshiqq (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article.

If the content is from the developer, that would mean it hasn't got any independent, reliable third-party coverage. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any coverage that I could find which would show this is notable enough for inclusion. JC7V (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failure of GNG. Frankly, this could probably be PROD'ed. Chetsford (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:SNOW. Lordtobi (✉) 20:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear delete. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. But likely delete next time around if not improved. Sandstein 19:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annalaura di Luggo[edit]

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

This article is terribly sourced: most of the references link to videos or articles in Italian, which even then do not appear to prominently mention the subject. Most of the content is promotionalism/puffery and there is no indication that subject meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no evidence that her works are "in the collections of galleries in Miami, New York, Paris, Sao Paulo, Istanbul, Monte Carlo, etc" - in fact, her bio on other sites states that she has "exhibited" in those places. The "galleries" in Italy which hold her work are in a school for the blind and a prison - admirable, but not meeting WP:CREATIVE, "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Reference 14 is actually a review of her work Blind Vision in ArtPulse, but it seems to be the only review, rather than press release, etc. So she hasn't "won significant critical attention", either. (And just as an aside, the article which Blind Vision is linked to here is about a song, not about her film!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RebeccaGreen, you can delete those claims from the article if you think they are not true. You can also tag such claims with templates like^{[failed verification]} and so on.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is the kind of promotional garage that we should avoid. However I see some articles in the sources that look like in-depth coverage. Can an Italian speaker give us a better idea of their quality? I deleted numerous passages of puffery, for example "She has hosted on her boat several Hollywood stars." (sourced by Youtube) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article worth keeping on en-Wiki if none of the sources are comprehensible to the average reader? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. If sources are available in other languages, they are as good as sources in English. They just need to exist. That's the policy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep and Significantly Rework. The tone itself is very promotional, but there are quite enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am leaning towards agreeing with Arthistorian1977. I strongly agree that we should not make decisions on articles where the sources are in another language that none of the AfD contributors speak. In cases such as this, we need guidance from someone who speaks the language. Google translate only goes so far.Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have removed what puffery I could see and any obviously not RS or primary references. From what remains, I am not sure this artist is notable, and am skeptical of the value of the sources. Not certain enough as of yet as to whether I would keep this or delete it. Isingness (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source notes. I looked at a smatering fo the sources in Google translate.

ref #1 one of many articles about her Blind Vision project. Short, not in-depth, looks like a lot of name dropping.
ref #3: a very short event announcement in a magazine, with what sounds like promo copy about the project.
ref #5: a fairly long event announcement for a solo show in a university magazine that looks to be RS.
ref #7 can be read in English here: http://artpulsemagazine.com/blind-vision
ref #8: Didici magazine. Reads like a press release, although it has an author.
ref #9: Ioarte, whose site description translates to "promotion of emerging artists"> Article has some good things but finished with her CV, so likely not RS.
ref #10 Dodici magazine again. A minor review of the blind vision project.

From the above I will say very weak keep and agree with ArtHistorian that it needs a significant rework. There's decent but not particularly in-depth coverage, mostly about the Blind Vision project. I'm almost neutral on this, it could also be deleted without a problem.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless Screen Entertainment[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ENIMATION Little Elephant - International Children and Youth Film Festival[edit]

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

No RS in the article and none found in a before search all sources are primary. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kratka Forma – The International Festival of Short Films[edit]

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

Non notable defunct film festival. fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette and Karl[edit]

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

It’s been 8 years and still this article has no citations, and nothing comes up in searches for news or web about this programme. If it still exists it does not appear to be notable, although the participants are. Mramoeba (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of scholars of African music[edit]

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

Unreferenced list with no set criteria. This article was DePRODed by an editor who has a history of DePRODing articles without any rationale. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 09:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-recognized academic subdiscipline (see the African Music Section of the Society for Ethnomusicology) but trim only to bluelinked articles per the usual conventions for open-ended Wikipedia lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add also: trim only to bluelinked articles that clearly state and source scholarly work in African ethnomusicology. The "no set criteria" claim is a red herring, not a valid reason for deletion, as it's easy enough to create appropriate criteria. The past history of the unprodder is also not a valid deletion rationale. So as an AfD with no valid deletion rationale stated, this could potentially be a speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, no set criteria, and probably original research. List consists of mostly non notable BLPs. Ajf773 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned up to only bluelinked entries, it's fine. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:LISTN; contains blue-linked entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as list has clear inclusion criteria, only contains blue-linked entries, and has suitable references supporting its status as a notable set or group in its own right. Meets WP:LISTN. Thanks to David Eppstein for putting in the work to improve the article. Bakazaka (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN; see Representing African Music, for example. As for the proposed deletion, this was improperly placed on a new good faith article and the contributor has not edited since. This action was contrary to WP:PROD, "for uncontroversial deletion ...must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and WP:BITE "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". Andrew D. (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Pushed back to Draft. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uplands College[edit]

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

Notability is very low, no real citations , the Uplands Preparatory School has nothing to do with Uplands college. I nominate it for deletion. Barry Ne (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Secondary school + existence = notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I totally disagree with the keep vote above; see WP:NSCHOOL; this article clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 90th anniversary for the prep school has been covered by papers. found this Lowvelder newspaper article: [16] [17] White River Post (local newspaper) and Lowverlder also features regular articles and announcements for the school. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is about the high school and not the prep school. In any case primary school are not notable Barry Ne (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Ne, it covers pre-K to grade 12, so the 90 year history applies. See [23] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, Good day. I respectfully accept the fact that, the school since 1997 catered for the high school phase as well. However it is two separate divisions. (Actually I belief it is two separate schools (2 Head Masters). The article itself says it caters for grade 8-12. If one however look at the article itself, no sources apart from the schools website appears as a source. You have subsequently shown more sources and citations than the original writer. I do not know with respect that if the article was written today and published as a draft if it would be accepted. Secondary sources are missing, reliability cannot be judge and significant coverage is an open debate. It is honestly, with no malicious intent, written like an advertisement, for example the words: picturesque, value-based education inspired parents, growing need for quality education within the region. I belief some of those words are subjective to a specific person’s mind and not a source. Although I don’t like the word, it is peacocking. So in closing I just want to say, I am not involved in education in South Africa, I do not stay near Uplands and, I do not know anybody there. At least I belief if not deleted, that it respectfully be pushed back as a draft until the citations and peacocking are removed. This is my last contribution and lets wait for more comments. We need this debate in order to have uniformity about notability of high schools and to get clarification on the inclusion of primary schools. Regards Barry Ne (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging and trimming it for peacock verbiage is different from checking whether it has enough sources to establish notability. And since this is a K-12 school, it is not just a primary school but primary + secondary. The article itself doesn't have to have those sources written in yet. I've provided two different local newspapers that give significant coverage on issues concerning the school. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be crazy for Wikipedia to choose to alienate a few hundred thousand potential editors who look up high schools and get started with those. So keep because it is a high school. Also keep per AngusWOOF's different arguments. --Doncram (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Push back to draft. If notable, citations and some other problems could be sorted out in the draft format, and once everything is in place publish it again Barry Ne (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources listed above shows reliable and independent indepth coverage of the school. The first source, which is the only one that has any real history, looks like it's written by the school - it talks about "our badge" and "our hockey team". Also, it's a high school, even though South Africa uses the term college, so the [2017 RfC] suggests the bar is higher. I did a Google search and found this [[24]], which says it's the most expensive private school in the area, but that's it. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 05:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. Ecleo, Sr., Dinagat Islands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO hueman1 (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cagdianao (and also all the other articles on individual barangays). The smallest administrative division does not have presumed notability, and this one appears to have no coverage apart from the expected weather, location, postcode, and government sources. (I note that there is a List of electoral wards in England by constituency, arranged by county, very few of which have individual articles. Perhaps there should be a List of barangays in the Philippines by city/municipality, arranged by province, rather than separate lists of barangays for each municipality.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RebeccaGreen: According ot the Barangay article, there are 42,000 of them. That's an order of magnitude more than the English article. I'll be impressed if you can achieve that within the timeframe of this AfD and you'll have my undying admiration as a Wikipedia editor. SpinningSpark 10:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will have to admit upfront that I will not win your undying admiration, SpinningSpark. I had not read as far as the number of barangays! So listed by municipality or province would probably work better - unfortunately, I am not offering to create those lists, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Despite nom's unsupported claim to the contrary this handily passes NGEO. It's a populated legally recognized place. Per WP:GEOLAND it's notable. Perhaps this self-proclaimed deletionist ought to read the policies they cite before nominating any more articles for deletion. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't set too much store by the example of few bluelinks being in List of electoral wards in England by constituency. As a counter-example, the list in Wards of the City of London is 100% bluelink ... and they've all been developed into fairly respectable articles, so it can be done. SpinningSpark 23:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NGEO as others have pointed out. Even the smallest administrative division is still a recognized division, and a recognized populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Madhawa Srinath Thirimanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE, only received merit award at non-notable national film awards (not award winner). IMDb is not a reliable or acceptable secondary source. PROD notice removed without addressing the issues. Dan arndt (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Beer Club[edit]

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

Delete There are many problems with this article. It is entirely promotional, especially the "Reviews" section which serves no other purpose other than to promote the club. I have read every reference and none meets the criteria for establishing notability failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I've tried working with the article creator and despite discussions on my Talk page, we're butting heads and not making progress. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me first of all point out that article reviewers such as HighKing are required to be civil in their dealings with editors, and the phrase "butting heads" used by HighKing is over-the-top and not, in my opinion, civil. The phrase seems to imply intransigence and an unwillingness on my part to improve the article, which is certainly not demonstrated by the history of the article’s revisions, nor by the comments that I have left on his and the article own Talk pages. When HighKing mentions that the article is, in his opinion, not notable, he fails to mention that another reviewer, Legacypac, determined that the article was notable while it was still in draftspace, as proven by the latter’s comments on HighKing’s own Talk page. This would at least imply that its notability is subject to interpretation. I should also point out in fairness that HighKing had promised me that he would search for links that might establish the notability of the article’s subject, but as far as I know, he has not yet done this, and his nominating the article for deletion seems to make it unlikely he'll fulfill that promise.

HighKing first tagged, and then attempted to delete, the article’s Reviews section, which is the strongest proof of the Rare Beer Club’s notability. He did this on the grounds that this section is especially "promotional" in an article that he believes, without evidence, is “entirely promotional,” seeming to imply that all the sources I have listed, including the Los Angeles Times, Fortune and Popular Mechanics, are somehow in the pay of the Rare Beer Club. Or perhaps he merely misinterprets that part of the WP:NOTE article that deals with this matter. That section prohibits either self-promotion or advertising, marketing and public relations. The Reviews section, however, is neither self-promotion nor advertising, since it presents links to independent third-party sources containing quotes commenting on the article's subject. HighKing took particular exception to the sentence, "The Rare Beer Club has received positive reviews from many print and online media sources." But this sentence is a objective statement of fact. If I had located negative reviews of the club, I would have linked to them as well, and written, equally accurately, "The Rare Beer Club has received mixed reviews…"

Finally, it should be noted that the article Tesla Model 3, to name one of many possible examples, contains multiple links to reviews of that product, but that that page was never, as far as I know, tagged as "promotional." Three years ago, I successful nominated the article Pather Panchali, about the classic Indian film of that name, as a Today’s Featured Article, and it appeared as a TFA on August 16, 2015 (its 50th anniversary). No doubt, HighKing would consider the Release and reception section of that article, in which there are links to sources containing original reviews of the film, to be a shameless promotion of Satyajit Ray, the film’s director.

I am perfectly willing to revise the article to improve it, if HighKing or another reviewer finally offers constructive suggestions, but I need to point out that I may be limited in my ability to do so within the seven-day period, as I will soon be undergoing a major medical procedure and will need time to recover. Depending on my condition, I may need to ask that HighKing withdraw the article from AfD temporarily, until I’m strong enough to make the necessary changes. I will have to review my health situation by November 10th to make that decision. Dylanexpert (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response I've tried to point out to the article creator that the "Reviews" section (now renamed "Reception") is entirely promotional. Any attempts to tag the sections was met with an instant removal. The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine. This was discussed at my Talk page. The following explanation was provided there in relation to the available references and the applicable policies/guidelines.

I tagged the article for potential notability issues to give the topic experts time to find good references but the author appears to have taken exception and came to my Talk page after removing the tag. Since then, I've politely asked that Dylanexpert highlight the two references he believes meets the criteria for establishing notability. For example, Dylanexpert lists "reliable mainstream sources" of The Los Angeles Times, Fortune and The Wall Street Journal. As I'm sure you know, "reliable mainstream sources" is not the criteria we should be looking at - let's just accept those publications indeed meet the relevant criteria for reliable sources - but the content of those articles is important. I don't have access to the WSJ at this location just now so I cannot comment on that reference. The LA Times reference relies entirely on information provided by Kris Calef - who owns the Rare Beer Club. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND and fails the criteria for establishing notability. The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club but for me, I do not regard it as in-depth coverage - closer to a mention-in-passing - and discusses the subscription service and not the organization and likely fails WP:CORPDEPTH. At a push, it is a weak reference. Other references such as the localbeerblog, mantelligence, berghoffbeer.com, ifmycoastercouldtalk.bangordailynews.com and blog.ggbailey.com, fail WP:RS since they are blogs, the beermonthclub is a PRIMARY source, the beerpulse reference is an Ad therefore PRIMARY, the various obituaries for Jackson don't mention the topic company, references like the Chicago Tribune, artofmanliness.com, brit.co and goop.com include a Rare Beer Club subscription in their lists of gift suggestions for whenever (Christmas, Fathers Day, Holidays) but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the Popular Mechanics reference is a mention in passing that talks about how great the service is but nothing about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the americancraftberr.com reference is a mention-in-passing plugging the service and fails CORPDEPTH, the hop-cast is basically a vlog and mentions getting a bottle with their subscription and fails CORPDEPTH.

The "Reviews"/"Reception" section is nothing but a cherry-picked section of positive comments, primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many refs from notable sources substantiate the correct inclusion of this page. This is not written in an Advertorial manner, it just reflects the sources. I actively delete spam all the time, so this is not an inexperienced vote. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please list any two references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Please also see my comments above in relation to the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I changed the title of the section from "Reviews" to "Reception" and eliminated the sentence about holiday and Father's Day gift-buying guides as possibly too promotional-sounding. Dylanexpert (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, thank you. But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s fair at all that HighKing is engaging in this controversy while I’m recovering from surgery, as mentioned above, but I’ll do my best to counter his arguments.

HighKing throughout is claiming that I am doing exactly what he is actually doing: namely, he is claiming that I’m ignoring him, while it is really he who is ignoring me. HighKing has never denied that he indicated he’d help me with the article, nor can he deny that he hasn’t helped me as promised. HighKing simply dismisses his own previous offers of help.

HighKing’s use of the phrase "cherry picked" implies that I dishonestly selected positive comments about the club and ignored any negative ones. As I’ve said already (and which HighKing typically didn’t listen to), I found no negative reviews for this club. The reviews are not "cherry-picked," because they are typical of the reception to this club. If I found, or if HighKing found, negative reviews of the club, I would gladly cite them as well. The burden of proof is on HighKing to find negative reviews to support his allegation. Meanwhile, I am not going to delete the Reception section as that very section constitutes proof of the club’s notability.

HighKing’s assertion that the reviews are "primarily about the beers and nothing about the club/organization itself" doesn’t make any sense… as I’ve already explained. This company is not Microsoft or Amazon; it’s a small organization. The beer club is the company. To expect online commentators to talk about something else besides the beer, such as, for example, the company’s corporate structure, is incredibly naïve. There are articles, like that of Mantelligence (citing The Wall Street Journal), that refer to the history of the company by mentioning Michael Jackson as the founder, but HighKing ignores this.

HighKing states above: "The editor is simply unwilling to listen and refused to accept there was any problems with the article and is relying on Legacypac's approval of the draft as confirmation that the article is perfectly fine." If this were true, if I had thought the article “perfectly fine,” I would not have made any subsequent changes to it. The article’s “view history” and its own Talk Page, demonstrate that I have made substantial changes since that conversation on HighKing’s Talk Page, one of which HighKing himself acknowledges above. I have proven myself ready and willing to cooperate when a suggestion makes sense to me. But I am not willing to obey everything HighKing says, or accept him as the ultimate authority on Wikipedia.

HighKing says: "But the primary issue is finding any two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability." Okay. Let’s talk about the Fortune article. HighKing says: "The Fortune article writes about a number of beer subscription services and mentions the Rare Beer Club and their pricing and has a section on the Rare Beer Club with a quote from Calef. But it is unclear which parts of this article refer specifically to the Rare Beer Club." This is not true, as I’ve already pointed out. It’s quite clear from the context which parts of the Fortune article refer to the Rare Beer Club, and that the writer does so at length. Furthermore, the Fortune writer goes out of his way to indicate that the club, like similar clubs, is expensive and thus not for everyone, so the writer’s mostly positive review of the club is tempered by this fact. This makes it clear that the Fortune article is, as per WP:NCORP, significant, independent, reliable and secondary. As to the Popular Mechanics article, it mentions The Rare Beer Club not in passing but as the main subject. It has no connection to the club, so it’s not a primary source. It is independent, because the article mentions potentially negative aspects of the club as well as positive ones: "The shipping costs are a pain." It is reliable because it’s not self-published, but is a reputable publication going back to 1902. So the Popular Mechanics article is significant, independent, reliable and secondary, and thus proves notability.

Because of health issues, I don’t know if I can respond anymore, but I think I’ve laid out my case for keeping the article. Dylanexpert (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry to hear you've health issues, hope you get well.

There are a total of 8 sentences in that article that clearly talks about RBC. One sentence tells us that the RBC typically ships two 750ml bottles and costs $50 after shipping and handling. Also, the Fortune article does not contain the sentence "The shipping costs are a pain" or anything close to it.
Of the remaining 7 sentences dealing with the RBC, the 4th is a quotation from Calef, the owner.
Of the remaining 6 sentences, the first sentence reminds us that the RBC ships beer and tell you that likely it will be something you've never had before. The second sentence says that typically, one bottle is from overseas and the other isn't, and reminds the reader that the owner, Calef, works with some US brewers to make batches that are exclusive to the club. Calef's quotation is directly supporting this "fact". With an eye on how much of the entire paragraph is clearly attributable to sources unaffiliated with the subject, I note that this "fact" doesn't appear in any other literature about the RBC that I have been able to locate - therefore I believe this "fact" was provided to the author by Calef for the purposes of this article. For this reason, I believe the article fails WP:ORGIND. Your mileage may vary.
NCORP also requires that the article is significant. As per WP:CORPDEPTH Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
For me, 8 sentences in an article where the topic company isn't even the subject matter of the article is not significant. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To HighKing: First, you mention above that the phrase "the shipping costs are a pain" doesn't appear in the Fortune article. Of course, it doesn't, because even a cursory reading of my comments above reveals that I was referring to the Popular Mechanics article, in which the phrase does appear, NOT to the Fortune article. Please read my text carefully before you attempt to refute it. Second, this discussion has been relisted "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus." That means that users other than you, me and LegacyPac should weigh in on the discussion. So let's both chill for awhile. Okay? Dylanexpert (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge On the surface the article appears widely referenced and extensively written, but the sources mostly seem to be promotional articles written on behalf the company themselves. No other beer clubs, many of which are more noteworthy (i.e. Ratebeer, Beermerchants) have pages, and I'm doubtful the club passes notability tests on Organisations/Companies, which stipulates there must be: Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If the article takes into account other beer subscription clubs, parts of it could maybe be saved by merging with the page on Beer Culture. AbrahamCat (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while there may be some arguments for notability, this is a clearly self promotional article and it would best be merged with another article as suggested above. Skirts89 (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be userfied via WP:REFUND on request. Sandstein 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELerator[edit]

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

No independent references in the article, and none found ([25] is commissioned by the College Board); however this is an extremely difficult term to search for. The entire article would likely need to be WP:TNT replaced if references about the program's impact were found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This isn't an article yet. There is a fair amount of professional literation to be found in ERIC reporting or at least discussing this project. for example , https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/EXCELerator_Impact_Year_2_report_0.pdf (there are a number of similar programs with similar names, so this is a bit of a project. But the material is there. ) The article was started in 2009 by an excellent and responsible editor , Moonriddengirl, who I hope will finish it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Thanks for the ping. I didn't start this one; it was actually a draft written by the editor I credited in the edit summary to address a copyright problem, User:Mgreason. Mgreason seems to have been inactive since April, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Life[edit]

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

While Hollywood Life is slightly notorious for their editorial style (if you could even call it that), the Great Value version of TMZ, an online version of Star, I don’t think they have enough notability for an article. Their parent company claims they reach ~30 million women a month but that figure couldn’t be independently verified. The only reliable source, WSJ, is pay walled so I’m unable to see it but it appears to be more about editor in chief Bonnie Fuller than the website itself. Other sources only mention them briefly and/or focus more on Fuller. If the page isn’t chosen for deletion I highly recommend redirecting it to Penske Media Corporation Trillfendi (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sources e.g. in New York Times, Wall Street Journal (which has substantial coverage on the website as well as Bonnie Fuller), Ad Week, Adage, Hollywood Reporter. There is also coverage on other aspects of the website e.g. here a Justin Bieber-inspired campaign - [26][27][28]. Should pass WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh 2 paragraphs (the first sentence, really) into that NYT link point out exactly what I’m talking about; the article is about Bonnie Fuller’s career and Penske Media, it’s not about the website itself. I’m still not able to get to WSJ article “Bonnie Fuller starts to trend” but do they verify these promotional claims of their monthly traffic? AdWeek says right there “Bonnie Fuller gets a nice profile piece in the Wall Street Journal”! That perfectly illustrates my rationale. From reading AdAge it’s once again about Fuller and Penske media rather than Hollywood Life on its own legs. When talking about the website their own publisher says "Bonnie has 5 million uniques.” Shouldn’t it be the website? Hollywood Reporter continues the theme of prefacing every statement with Fuller and Penske. Now, is Justin Bieber having a vendetta against their... lack of editorial standards, and telling his fans to “spam” them really “notability”? I have to stand by the notability-isn’t-inherited notion. We should really redirect this.Trillfendi (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you are arguing about something you can't see. I have also no idea why you dismiss the other articles that discuss primarily about the company (e.g. the visitors it had how it affect advertising) or understand that "Bonnie has 5 million uniques" clearly is a reference to the website. It is possible for articles to cover both the person and website at the same time, given that they are linked. The Justin Bieber incidence is significant enough to be covered by The Independent (which is a major newspaper in the United Kingdom). The website is clearly significant enough to warrant press coverage (or indeed for Justin Bieber to bother campaigning against it). Hzh (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hzh How is saying traffic numbers coming from inside the company yet not being independently verified “arguing” about it. 🤔 Go and use your WSJ subscription, I really don’t personally care. I’m pointing these things out as I’m the one who proposed deletion; if you think these improve the quality of the article then be my guest. The primary issue that made me propose deletion is that Bonnie Fuller is being used as a synecdoche for this website and I have yet to see to see a reliable source cover this website in depth without giving the entire weight to Penske Media or Fuller. It’s supposed to be able to stand on its own too. This is an example of how a website’s notability and stats can and should be established and verified without placing it all on its founder, in my opinion. Or this. And I know what the Independent is.Trillfendi (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no subscription to WSJ but still can read it. I think it sets a limit on page views for non-subscribers. Hzh (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article's subject as currently defined probably passes WP:GNG anyway, it's worth noting that the story in this article starts with the brand relaunch, rather than the current website's origins as a magazine/website in its Movieline days (see, e.g., [29]) before the acquisition. Hollywood Life had RS coverage well before Fuller ever showed up. In other words, if there's any apparent notability issue, it's because the article is incomplete. It's possible that a multiple-page reorganization would provide a better service to readers, but that's an editing issue to discuss on article talk pages, not a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per comments above. --Doncram (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Great Cockroach 007 and BiNA have been blocked. Sandstein 19:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Drogalchuk[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger/journalist. Coverage appears to be exclusively in the publication Obozrevatel, and consists of an inclusion in a top-10 list [30] and a bio [31]. Amusingly, that second source establishes that the subject has worked for Obozrevatel, which makes the source non-independent to boot. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO The Ukrainian and Russian wikipedia articles do not provide any additional sources other than links to the subject's blog. I attempted to find more sources online in English, Russian, and Ukrainian and failed, although I will admit that I'm not very familiar with Ukrainian media and could have missed something. Originally nominated for PROD by me, dePROD by initial editor Great Cockroach 007 with the justification I withdraw the nomination because of the obvious importance of the person. Firstly, the rating indicated in the article and biographical dossier is on the most popular information resource in Ukraine. Secondly, I will look for sources that I have met on the Internet. They definitely were. In any case, I will try to find the archives. Thirdly, in the case of a shortage of sources, put a template for improvement, although all the information in the article is available in the main source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not specifically justify and defend. The article is a translation of a fairly well-known character in Ukarin, far from narrow circles. Compiled by the TOP site (especially the second place in the rating) + biographical dossier on the site, which is the most popular or included in the TOP-5 of Ukrainian information resources. This is an information bomb that automatically gives value. Yes, as far as I know, the subject of the article worked with this resource. But not now and this is indicated in the biography. What makes the source absolutely neutral. Now, obviously, Dmytro is working with another Ukrainian giant - the Korrespondent. This is indicated as in the biography [3]. And he is far from a novice blogger and journalist. You do not look at age. As far as I know, he was leading children's programs on small television channels in Ukraine; and since the beginning of the war, in his 14-15 years, he has already become a special correspondent (this is in his biography on the same Obozrevatel). I personally oppose deletion as an article translator. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC) This editor was blocked for sockpuppeting[reply]

I was invited to vote as a user who edited the main article. Let nothing colossal, I did not write and did not correct, but leave the opinion. I do not see a particular problem for removal. Perhaps for the English Wikipedia this is less important than for the Ukrainian version of the project. But, of course, this is important, it is confirmed by the Observer. You just look at the popularity of the browser itself. And a small remark, this is not as a criterion of significance, but for information only - an article about this “newcomer”, 2,500 people looked at this month. And we are talking about a 19-year-old journalist from Ukraine. For me, this is an important indicator. And there, let the public decide. -BiNA (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)This editor was blocked for sockpuppeting[reply]

Additional comment from nom I see from the edit history of the editors that have commented above that this subject was already brought to AfD under a different name back in May Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmytro_Baker _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a weak article, as from a dictionary. I invited the author of this article to express his opinion here. I wrote a full translation, but not a small note, as from a dictionary. I see no problems with this. Then I first left a comment and only when I figured out with significance - I voted. --Great Cockroach 007 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this article passes notability guidelines. At minimum needs to be rewritten since it's clearly self-promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the accounts that you accused of a puppet existence, it's you in vain. I, as a patrolman and author in Ukrainian Wikipedia, know about these users, they are quite popular. This is a married couple and a sister of a member of the couple who registered on Wikipedia for a theme evening in Ukraine. And the fact that they contribute from one PC is not a reason for blocking. Regarding the character about which the article, then everything is obvious. For Ukrainian journalism, especially in the war zone in the east of the country, there is significance and it is quite large. A biography on such a resource is a great achievement for a journalist. And the rating, which is one of the main ones in the Ukrainian media, makes Dmytro also very significant in the blogosphere. My opinion. —Jack Bulitlo (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Balcaen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. I searched sources for notability and although she was All-American Series ROTY that's not notable enough. One K&N race does not justify a page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Very) Weak Keep for now: Seems to have a decent number of sources, perhaps if someone digs deep enough, we have something that could be saved. The K&N level is clearly notable enough (and WP coverage of the series has improved tremendously in the last calendar year), though there's only a single start...I think this might be salvagable, but it needs work. I tend to be an inclusionist on here but I can't say I'd wholeheartdly oppose deletion as it stands. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have 1 race in the regional K&N East circuit (a 20th place finish). Don't believe that's enough to meet WP:NMOTORSPORTS. I also don't believe rookie of the year at an even lower level is sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi Technologies, Inc.[edit]

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

Sourced primarily by blogs or press-releases, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Also an issue with promotional language. The similar article was rightly rejected at AfC Draft:Wasabi Hot Storage. Potential WP:COI issue. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 20:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think there could be a COI here and will warn the article creator. Deb (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cleaned it up a bit and eliminated some of the advertising lingo. I'm not impressed as to notability though. There's the one award, I suppose. Deb (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo -- There's no COI as I understand it! I'm interested in the space (Boston startups) & in contributing to Wikipedia in general! As a follow on, I thought there was sufficient significant coverage (especially compared to similar companies' pages) & a neutral tone. However, if not am happy to revise any overly promotional parts! Just not sure which ones people are referring to. Everything felt like a pretty neutral statement of fact about a new company making an interesting impact on the cloud storage / boston startup scene. Roger Bevins The 3rd (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are several mentions at trusted local media including the Bostone Globe. It also has one reputable mention at Forbes and a brief mention at Fortune. --Gprscrippers (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Forbes article is a "Contributor" item, which is usually not considered reliable. Fortune is a one line mention._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foot Levelers[edit]

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

NN company - looks like a spammy article to me. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the References section is sparse, there's a Sources section in the article with numerous sources. I haven't looked at them closely, but briefly clicking on some of them suggest enough coverage to meet WP:CORP. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has a tag saying this meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations heading the article. Vorbee (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tag on an article isn't a valid argument to delete it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Ghulam Ahmed Perwez. Black Kite (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exposition of the Holy Quran[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBOOK MT Train^Talk 09:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghulam Ahmed Perwez, which links this article's only source, the site of the publisher's english translation(s). Google Scholar searches are not showing me a wealth of potential independent, secondary sources. Also, in my cursory attempt to copyedit for promotional tone, I notice the text focuses on the difficulty of translation into English, but it appears Perwez only translated into Urdu before he died, so most of this brief write-up dwells on a tangent (or an apology). This suggests there may not be enough to make a good freestanding article on this book. Subject is potentially interesting, so I hope someone will prove me wrong on this. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Helenna Santos[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:BLP of an actress and producer, "best known" for a direct-to-streaming film and a one-shot appearance on a TV show. These are not article-clinching notability claims per WP:NACTOR, but none of the sourcing here is cutting it in terms of getting her over WP:GNG -- the article is reference bombed to a pile of primary sources, blogs, YouTube videos, glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about other people and pieces in which she's the bylined author and not the subject -- literally the closest thing there is here to a notability-supporting source is a single article in a smalltown community pennysaver. The sourcing here is simply not good enough, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bearcat's analysis of the sourcing is spot on. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, and the don't pass WP:FILMMAKER or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when someone is best known for a one episode minor role in a TV show they are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus about redirect - anybody can create and then contest it. Sandstein 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Gautama Buddha[edit]

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

Subject matter is not clearly defined. Not a subject that is notable in itself. It does not help that there is no substantial content in the article. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention there already is an article about the family of Gautama Buddha.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family of Gautama Buddha. SJK (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also object to a redirect, as nobody talks about descendants of Gautama Buddha. The term is misleading—the word descendants implies multiple generations, but the Buddha never had any grandchildren, let alone great-grandchildren.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family of Gautama Buddha. Anyone searching for descendants of Gautama Buddha is going to be looking for the family. Even though the term may be a little misleading, it's technically correct in the sense that there's one descendant, and so long as someone could reasonably search for it, I think they should be pointed to the place they're trying to go. I don't see anything at WP:R#DELETE that'd require it to go. - Sdkb (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one descendent, so the plural in the title is incorrect. Descendant of Gautama Buddha would be correct, but silly, as we know the descendent was a son, so Son of Gautama Buddha would be better if only he was notable and we didn't know his name. Oh wait, he is notable and we do know his name. SpinningSpark 00:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone agrees the title "Descendants of Gautama Buddha" is wrong and misleading. The question is, does it make sense to redirect from an incorrect/misleading title to the correct one? I think so yes. An uninformed person might think that the Buddha might have descendants today, and might go searching for information on them, by using the incorrect title as a search term. The redirect would help point such a person towards the correct information. That's why I think redirect is better than delete. SJK (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought redirect was a good idea I would have said so. It's not a likely search term, and in any case, the first article that will come up for that search is Gautama Buddha, which has all the information that is on this page. Calling for a redirect is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. SpinningSpark 14:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see any downside to a redirect; see Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. - Sdkb (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects are costly. Which of the reasons at the guideline WP:RPURPOSE do you suppose justify keeping this redirect? None of them apply in my opinion. On the other hand, the guideline WP:R#DELETE gives two applicable reasons for deleting it; criteria #2 (confusing) and #8 (obscure). SpinningSpark 10:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Kya Tum: This October Get Ready For A New Sensational Murder Mystery!". koimoi.

[2] "murder mystery Kya Tum". dailyhunt.

[3] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jake-noch-pro-music-rights

[4] ttps://www.instagram.com/p/Bl5u2c1gXMY/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]