Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Social Wavelength[edit]

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

This does not pass WP:NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable PR agency. I nominated the article for afd1 , when it was closed as delete. This time we need to protect against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient media coverage - fails WP:GNG. I was going to suggest merging to J. Walter Thompson, with the single good source in the Social Wavelength article now, but there's no acquisitions section at JWT, and so it would be undue weight if added to the history section. If anyone ever does add JWT's acquisitions to a section, this could warrant at least a sentence, but otherwise, it's a delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softball at the 2016 South Asian Games[edit]

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

This sport was not contested in the competition per source provided Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it did happen, the article consists entirely of uselessly empty tables. The orginal wording of the article was "is scheduled to be held". This was changed by later editors, probably as a copyedit simply because the date had passed. SpinningSpark 01:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never happened and not happening was not notable. One can even argue it meets parts of WP:A1 and WP:A3. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was the softball competition supposed to be held and then was canceled? Or was it never supposed to be held? If it was supposed to be held, we can discuss the cancellation at the 2016 South Asian Games article and redirect this there, per WP:ATD. Otherwise, it should be deleted per above. Smartyllama (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I would go along with that if there were a source for it, but even the source in the article fails to verify that it was even ever scheduled, let alone the reason for not going ahead. SpinningSpark 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichi Chuganji[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Being old is not an achievement and just based on luck. Sources are GRG and 2 articles about his death. » Shadowowl | talk 21:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Vexatious nomination as this topic was already discussed and kept previously. No new argument has been presented and this line of argument has failed in multiple recent cases such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. The nominator has been repeatedly warned about their overzealous nominations -- see here, for example -- but persists in making them. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI thread was for that I nominated 160 articles in 1 day. That was way to much, and I acknowledged that I was wrong there. Trying to get this article speedy kept because of admin incompetence and an ANI thread for mass nominating is just awful. This article will certainly not be speedy kept. There are no reasons to keep this. » Shadowowl | talk 10:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. It's easier to have a much clearer discussion when the 110 club put their socks away. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep based on results of two prior AfDs, with no new argument being presented as to why they should be overturned. BBC and LA Times articles are reliable sources, and there are others available as well - see here at the Japan Times, here in a book about centenarians, here at CBS News, etc. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first and last one just confirm that he is dead. That is just WP:ROUTINE coverage and it does not prove notability. The second one is a list, and cannot be used to claim notability. » Shadowowl | talk 10:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at WP:ROUTINE states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." None of the sources provided, nor the additional ones I pointed out, are in that category. The sources provided are fairly long, in-depth retrospectives of the subject's life, not at all within the purview of that policy. While you may not think simply being old makes one notable, multiple reliable sources seem to disagree; most people do not get multiple international news articles on them when they die. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1, BBC, says little more than he died + some trivia. The second source is full of sensationalism. The third source is a GRG table, which cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth source is a expansion on the first source and the best source we have. Source 5 and 7 are lists, and don't count for notability. The 6th source is another death+trivia report And again, these sources don't point out WHY this person is notable, they only report on his death. » Shadowowl | talk 16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all say why he's notable. It's right in the leads: BBC - "A retired Japanese silkworm breeder believed to have been the world's oldest man has died at the age of 114" LAT - "Yukichi Chuganji, the world's oldest man, died Sunday at the age of 114" Japan Times - "Yukichi Chuganji, 114, the oldest man in the world, died of natural causes Sunday at his home" CBS - "Yukichi Chuganji, a retired silkworm breeder documented as the world's oldest man, died at his home in Japan at age 114" (emphasis mine). Just because you don't agree that extreme age is notable, doesn't mean others can't believe it is notable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of him that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how he relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions and the usual longevity trivia (born, had kids, lived with a daughter, died). There is nothing else to say about him. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article on a deceased (i.e. non-WP:BLP) man has already been nominated twice. Each time it was closed as keep. Not no consensus or near keep, i.e. a borderline keep. Not even once. I try to remain open minded but where is the change versus previous discussions? This information feels missing to me. gidonb (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic area has a LONG (we're talking at least a decade) history of off-wiki canvassing which clearly happened in the first and second AFD's so now that the 110 Club has put their socks away a much clearer discussion can happen. Consensus can also change as well. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All except 1 keep vote were he is old so he must be notable which isn't policy. It should have been a NC close, as the keep arguments were repeating the same. » Shadowowl | talk 13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining why you nominated this once again. gidonb (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:NOPAGE. After removing all the fancruft about "titleholders", there's just the barest bio info left. In most of these discussions we don't need to reach the question of whether they're notable, because even if they are they're still best presented in a list, per NOPAGE. E Eng 17:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not inherently notable by one of our professional or other people rules, Yukichi Chuganji meets the WP:GNG and should be kept a third time (!) as such. gidonb (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Half the article is either unsourced longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors or original research about how someone was older but later is no longer recognised. What's left is the absolute bare life basics of born, bred worms, had a daughter who outlived him, became oldest man and then died. Entry on a list is enough because there is never going to be more than 5 things to say about him. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because consensus can change. When it comes down to sourcing that provides encyclopedic content per WP:N, I do not feel that there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In earlier years we kept all too many articles in this field. But the oldest person on a world basis or whoever has a reasonable claim to it, with at least somewhat acceptable sources, is appropriate for a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC) .[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per WP:GNG. I would suggest that being, at one point in time, the world's oldest living person is an exclusive club, and one for which general readership will seek encyclopedic information. There is more verifiable information here than fits neatly within a list. The encyclopedia would therefore not be improved by its deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:33, 28 September 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. No consensus to delete, which is a default keep. A merge could be discussed elsewhere. Curiously, I found that I closed the first Afd back in 2010 as well, what are the odds :) Tone 09:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tane Ikai[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Contains the usual trivia. Source 1 is a list. Source 2 confirms that she's dead and the other one is a GBWR listing. Nothing makes this person significant. Being old is not an achievement but is instead based on luck. » Shadowowl | talk 21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Vexatious nomination as this topic was already discussed and kept previously. No new argument has been presented and this line of argument has failed in multiple recent cases such as Kane Tanaka and Chiyo Miyako. The nominator has been repeatedly warned about their overzealous nominations -- see here, for example -- but persists in making them. Andrew D. (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: You are hurting the case for keeping this article -- a cause I support! -- by comparing it to Chiyo Miyako, an article whose defense you and your friends so bungled that it wound up getting merged despite there definitely being enough to build a standalone article. (Another user's edit-warring to keep it as a standalone article after the deletion review ended is beside the point.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The vast majority of the content in the article is the usual longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, got separated, died). Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. E Eng 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable per WP:GNG, just like in 2010. gidonb (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change after 8 years. Especially when the 2010 AFD was full of sock-puppets from the World's Oldest People Yahoo group. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which user or users did you identify as sock puppets? gidonb (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect Per Eng#s and Newshunter12. Being the WOP does NOT automatically qualify as notable, there needs to be sufficient content to justify an article. There isn't, all meaningful encyclopedic content can be found in a list, or at a stretch, a mini-bio. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Another clumsy nomination. Having been the oldest person ever in Japan, let alone Asia, is a highly noteworthy achievement, and the article already includes more reliably sourced information than the vast majority of the sub-stubs left in the mainspace by Andrew Davidson and the like. I'm confident most of the community would !vote keep even without my help, but there's also the risk this AFD will be overrun by bullshit keepist !votes with no basis in policy, as happened here, and the closer dismisses them all as a result. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here if the sources meant she was "notable". There is never going to be more than 5 things to say about her (born, married, had kids, became oldest in country, died). Much better handled on a list and not a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because consensus can change and there is no policy that states being the oldest anything is automatically notable; it comes down to sourcing, which in this case I feel is insufficient for a stand-alone article. Canadian Paul 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Into the Rift (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panjiayu Massacre[edit]

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

The reason for the deletion is that Panjiayu Massacre may be a fake event.

Checking the page history, I found that the person who created this page has only one purpose.His purpose is to make this page and this historical event.But this page has no reference. It may be my prejudice, but when there is no more reliable reference, I can't believe the point of view from China.

This incident has deepened my prejudice. Witotiwo (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that it happened, at least, is easily citable in reliable sources [1][2][3]. SpinningSpark 01:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case the nom dismisses your sources because the authors appear to be Chinese, here's a source from the CIA: [4]. Panchiayu=Panjiayu. Timmyshin (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you bring up the matter of the edit history (and inferred purpose) of the creator of this article, I'd point out that your own (short) edit history exhibits some extraordinary features. Anyway, yes, this massacre occurred, regardless of the claims made decades later about a hotel and police in Sweden. Therefore reject the deletion rationale, and at least for now keep this (very poor) article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AFD is only a pretext to raise awareness of the incident in Sweden. Timmyshin (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, from the sources cited above, also a gsearch of "hebei Massacre 1941" brings up more sources, most are from chinese publications that some may suggest are bias but i have been unable to find any sources that state that this did not ocur. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter what was the purpose of the creator, the subject has lasting impact.[5] Rzvas (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. I see multiple google book hits for this, and this Routledge handboox satisfies me in that it is treated as a factual event. In as much as this is a hoax - it would be a notable hoax - and one would expect strong sources backing up this assertion (given the multiple sources treating this as factual) - as opposed to an editor's opinion. Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am surprised that we should have an article on the massacre and none on the place where it took place. Currently the article has one source (in Chinese). If it did happen, it is certainly notable, but I cannot judge whether it did. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Finding sources that even verify existence for small villages outside of Europe and North America is often difficult. Many get nominated and deleted at AfD leading to our populated places articles being heavily skewed. We at least have Panjiayuan Subdistrict. I am surprised that you are unsure of the existence of the event. Do you not find the sources presented in this discussion convincing? SpinningSpark 19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Panjiayuan is completely different from Panjiayu. Panjiayu Village was and still is located in Huoshiying, Fengrun, Tangshan, Hebei, China. There are at least 700,000 villages in China, the majority of them with a population over 1000 and therefore meeting WP:GEOLAND, but the truth is we barely have articles on Chinese towns (like Huoshiying) which typically administer 10-100 villages. Timmyshin (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there are multiple places with the same name, and often there are multiple transliterations possible for non-English (and all the more so - non-Latin alphabet) locations - I've seen a few for the massacre (including one word vs. two words - e.g. the Routledge source above uses "Pan Jiayu" and not "Panjiayu"). As for our systemic bias- yes - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheed Pir Chandam for instance - this was a small village with fairly ancient, but less notable, shrine. Chandam, though a minor figure, has locations named after him throughout the Indian subcontinent. There are also 4 different spelling variations in English (dam, dram, dan, dran) - and this in a country (Pakistan) where English enjoys an official status. I actually ended up verifying the location of this village on a satellite image through (un sourced) information in the pre-deletion article that described it in relation to other larger towns - and then located the photographed shrine in the satellite image. After verifying the location, with two (in google maps - the road was written different from the town) variant spelling on the one we had in the article + province name / nearby settlement names - we were able to find in the AfD a few sources mentioning this... No Urdu-Wiki entry for this one .... In short - small locations in countries that do not use English and that don't have a very active editor base - often get overlooked. We probably have an entry on almost each ghost town and itty bitty village in the US - but coverage in China or Africa - including larger and older settlements - is much more spotty. Icewhiz (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greek response to Orthodox Church in America autocephaly[edit]

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

This article expounds in great detail one side of a quite obscure religious dispute pertaining to a specific religious denomination. The sources remain unclear (there are page numbers, but of which work?), and more importantly, it's entirely unclear how this very particular topic meets WP:GNG or is of interest to readers of a generalist encyclopedia. The topic is covered at a more appropriate level and more understandably at Orthodox Church in America#Recognition of autocephaly. Sandstein 19:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the creator, LoveMonkey (talk · contribs), is now indef-blocked for "crass battleground attitude, personal attacks, long-term tendentious editing agenda" and for violating a topic ban regarding East-West religious disputes, so there may well be problems with this content that are not immediately obvious. Sandstein 19:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Perhaps move to Orthodox Church in America autocephaly which would make the article more balanced. It does appear to be a notable topic, and would be undue weight in Orthodox Church in America#Recognition of autocephaly. St Anselm (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't pick sides, and we are not a soap box, for this obsure dispute. We are a non-sectarian charity. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'Isigny[edit]

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

@Doctorx0079: This cheese is no longer made and there is little information available about it. To be clear, I made this AfD on behalf of the pinged user. Matt14451 (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not it is currently manufactured is irrelevant. There are numerous early-20th sources covering this, including a lengthy entry over several pages in The Book of Cheese]. As to whether it is still made, the closest I could find was an entry in The Complete Book of Cheese] which mentions it disparigingly in the past tense, but without actually saying it is now unobtainable. Further coverage [6][7]. SpinningSpark 19:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The name refers to the place Isigny and that's now protected as an AOC/PDO in Europe. See beurre d'Isigny and Isigny Sainte-Mère. This might make it difficult for American producers to use the name. Andrew D. (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spinningspark has demonstrated good coverage and notability does not expire. Andrew D. (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is informative and seems noteworthy too. It should not matter if the product is available or not. Dial911 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion is clearly at odds with community practice: The notability guidelines are routinely applied to old articles. Sandstein 15:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mophie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Despite 44 references in the article itself, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The articles either discuss/review the products and not the company (fails CORPDEPTH) or are based on announcements/PR/quotations/interviews with company sources (fails ORGIND). Overall, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. [Edit: the company was acquired by Zagg in 2016 but I don't see a lot in this article that could be merged]. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability guidelines have been changed since the article's creation. I would not consider new guidelines on this to apply to articles created before that date. Daylen (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advertisement and obvious subject of heavy promotional editing, likely UPE. See here. If somebody wants to create an actual encyclopedia article on this company they can. This should be nuked. yes NCORP applies to everything. There is no "grandfathering". Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, someone did create an actual encyclopedia article on it - that person being me - however, the issue here is that it has been turned into a promotion-fest since that time. It's sad when a company is notable enough that someone decides to write about it, then editors with a likely COI come along and ruin it. I am kind of conflicted here as the company is notable (just three but there are many more). The problem I see is that the current version could likely be speedied based on WP:NOT. With that being said, they (anyone adding the promotional tone) made their own bed and I'll abstain from voting and leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the article's fate. I won't be heartbroken if deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that this happened. I am sorry that your work was perverted. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but it does make me wonder sometimes if I should even concentrate on company articles anymore. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Loose Women episodes[edit]

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

No sources. Lack Notability. Matt14451 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 15:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Women is notable, and the episodes of a notable series are verifiable. So the nominator does not raise any valid complaints here. But as this is a talk show and not the kind of series for which we presumptively list episode-specific information, there is still a possible basis for deletion. So let's focus on that... postdlf (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any sources in the article at present. The only way to check would be to watch the episode as it airs but that can't be linked. There was a maintenance tag on the page. It's a valid complaint. The information seems too specific as well. The number of episodes that each panelist/presenter has appeared on is sufficient in the main article. Matt14451 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only relevant to deletion if it can't be sourced, so no, what is "in the article at present" is not relevant to deletion (and no, watching a TV show when it originally airs is not the only way to verify its contents, unless you've somehow time traveled to the 1950s). The second part of your comment is on the right track as far as what is relevant here. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. There's no way to check who was on the panel in the first episodes. Matt14451 (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the problem is WP:CHALLENGE of all contents of the article, it can be deleted according to WP:PAGEBLANKING. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sourcing and seemingly cannot be sourced, so failing WP:No original research. I would happily change my mind if someone can provide adequate sourcing for all the episodes of just one series, assuming good faith that the remainder could similarly be sourced. Until and unless that happens, though, it's a delete from me. Fish+Karate 14:17, 25 September 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. Nominator withdrawn SpinningSpark 18:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Fulayyah[edit]

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

Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to urban area of modern Ras Al Khaimah - Al Fulaya Plaza nearby shopping centre likely all that's left of any community that may have existed here. Not notable. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bogus, inaccurate, uncited three-word article. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now change to Keep per the below from Sam. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probable historical place if not current place per WP:GEOLAND - it's on this map at least: [8] SportingFlyer talk 06:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is now sourced with two sources, meets [[WP:GEOLAND]]. Courtesy ping (Alexandermcnabb—Lugnuts—Softlavender—SportingFlyer). Sam Sailor 15:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have redirected the page to the current Al Falayah Fort, a landmark which today stands at the former location of the settlement and a name in modern usage and a notable place. I hope this sorts out the issue of this mad, archaic stub. Best. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is fine, but technically and procedurally it is not good to redirect during AFD, could you undo that, Alexandermcnabb? (Speaking for myself I don't mind if you redirect the second this discussion is closed, if you are sure to fort is located in the same area.) Sam Sailor 18:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woops, sorry, didn't mean to jump the gun. Can we close as keep and then I'll redirect then? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:22, 22 September 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 Elbistan coalfield. Tone 09:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afşin-E coal mine[edit]

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

Reason as per Afşin-C coal mine - does not existChidgk1 (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield which certainly exists, is a huge open-cast complex and so has subdivisions of this sort. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:48, 25 September 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 Elbistan coalfield. Tone 09:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afşin-D coal mine[edit]

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

as per Afşin-C coal mine - does not exist Chidgk1 (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield which certainly exists, is a huge open-cast complex and so has subdivisions of this sort. Andrew D. (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:53, 25 September 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 Elbistan coalfield. Tone 09:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afşin-C coal mine[edit]

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

Although the mine was apparently considered for creation some years ago as far as I know it was never created. See fig 1 in http://www.onderalgedik.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/AfsinElbistanCoalPP.pdf Chidgk1 (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield which certainly exists, is a huge open-cast complex and so has subdivisions of this sort. Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about Elbistan and I hope to have time to update that article anyway but I am not sure which info in this article is reliable enough to be merged in. If you have any better info than that in the sources for https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Af%C5%9Fin-Elbistan_lignite_mines please let me know. Obviously politicians want to increase production http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/bakan-donmez-hedefimiz-ithal-komuru-asgariye-i-40947660 but whether that is actually economically possible is hard to tell. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Elbistan coalfield. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What info do you think is reliable enough to be merged? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cooney[edit]

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

He has a gallery and teaches at a university - not a professor as is claimed. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough evidence in my view of notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WorldCat Source added: [9]. jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the World Cat source is reliable, but by itself does prove significant coverage. He seems to be fairly run of the mill, to be honest. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tex Hammond[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who fails WP:NACTOR (no major roles) and WP:GNG. Notability not inherited from mother, and only source is Blogspot, so this might count as WP:BLPPROD. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I originally placed a PROD on this article addressing the notability problem. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there is a lot more to his oeuvre than is stated in the article it doesn't add up to notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Daniel. Dial911 (talk) 02:35, 29 September 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. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time. SpinningSpark 18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaroad[edit]

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

Article haven't any reliable sources and infobox to show it's context. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First of all, infobox is not necessary. An article may or may not have it. Secondly, it passes WP:GEOLAND as it says, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable." Knightrises10 (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as above it clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 22 September 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. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time. SpinningSpark 18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambilad[edit]

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

Article haven't any reliable sources . PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily passes WP:GEOLAND. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 22 September 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. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time. SpinningSpark 18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pachapoika[edit]

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

Article haven't any sources and infobox to show it's context. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 14:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As I said in your previous Afd nomination, infobox is not necessary. And it passes WP:GEOLAND. Knightrises10 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep passes WP:GEOLAND. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 22 September 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. And move to List of Sanskrit-related topics. Sandstein 15:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The term Sanskrit isn't ambiguous. All that the dab page lists are either subtopics, which are already linked from the main article (and its main navbox), or partial title matches (proper nouns that simply happen to include "Sanskrit" in their title). There's some prior discussion on the article's talk page. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle to List of Sanskrit-related topics. Not all the items on the page are in the template (nor should they be), and it's therefore a navigational aid. Narky Blert (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominally, this is an acceptable outcome, but the dab page lists only a dozen out of the hundreds of Sanskrit-related topics. I don't think we should be creating such "Outline of" style articles unless they're at least partially complete to begin with and there are editors willing to expand and maintain them. – Uanfala (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Arguably, Sanskrit studies and Sanskrit are ambiguous. In that case, however, the language is the primary usage and disambiguation can be done with a hatnote. I would therefore not object to deletion, though it might be good to have some sort of navigation aid, as discussed by Narky Blert and Unafala, above. Cnilep (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle to List of Sanskrit-related topics per Narky Blert. I am not so concerned about the incompleteness of the list. I think such a list will tend to be developed in the same way that other lists are. bd2412 T 01:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle to something, possibly List of Sanskrit-related topics. It doesn't differentiate alternative meanings of Sanskrit, and is therefore not a dab. Possibly merge into {{Sanskrit language topics}}. Certes (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I merged all the relevant entries into that template before nominating for deletion. And if anything is to become of this article, I think its title should begin with "Outline" rather than "List" (see Wikipedia:Outlines#Outlines misnamed as "List of"). – Uanfala (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, adding any useful links not already mentioned to the See Also of Sanskrit and/or Portal:Sanskrit and/or Template:Sanskrit language topics. (Portal:Sanskrit already fulfills the function of the list article proposed by others above). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle per Narky Blert. This is a valid index. The portal is not really an index. James500 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle I believe in the organic growth of such lists, and their periodic reorganization. Here there is too much potentially available for a list in "See also", and while the "CategoriesM" list at Portal:Sanskrit is useful, it is not the only way to organize the articles. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle I'd dispute the OP that The term Sanskrit isn't ambiguous. similarly to Cnilep, since the base word "Sanskrit" could refer to almost any of those articles depending on context, meaning the word itself is ambiguous as far as our article titles go, but it has a clear primary topic. (If I tell my non-Star Wars fan coworker that I'm going to see "Star Wars" after work, I'm probably referring to whichever new film in the franchise is in cinemas now, and not the original 1977 film or to "the franchise overall" -- whatever that would mean. This is similar, as "translated from the Sanskrit" could better refer to Sanskrit Buddhist literature, Sanskrit Wikipedia, etc., depending on context.) That said, retitling is probably the better move to begin with. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are two other legitimate entries - The Sanskrit College and University and Sanskrit Collegiate School. No objection to transferring the current content to an index page. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnevilla[edit]

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

Not notable. Awards are not major. Self released albums. Lacks coverage about them in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:04, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE (talk • contributions) 10:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The article from Above Average Hip Hop is the only in-depth source about the band, and it may not pass as a reliable source. There are two references which are about two artists that the group has worked with, but Bonnevilla aren't mentioned in either article. Everything else is social media and links to videos for the tracks and download sites. Richard3120 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajoobsha[edit]

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

Article has been here a couple of days now. No sign of meeting WP:Notability. Also, it's only source isn't reliable. NOTE I removed a wiki project source which was it's second source. 6Packs (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, subject is a budding musician and actor with only minor roles so far. There is absolutely zero coverage in reliable mainstream media. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per above. ∯WBG^converse 19:05, 23 September 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 15:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devaki Neogi[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:BASIC, no in depth coverage at non-affiliated sources in article, Google searches didn't return any significant secondary source coverage, no clear claim to notability independent of coverage in sources. Rosguill^talk 07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nomination --Farahpoems (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please see WP:PERNOM.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My own Google searches returned dozens of mentions in relation to different projects. There is very good coverage of her "Google doodle". Other mentions are in less depth, but she certinaly has aprofessional profile as an illustrator/comics artist I'm not sure how the nominator missed her bing mentioned in The Independent, the Comics Alliance, in Elle India and the Financial Post. While the sources could be more in depth, she certainly has a professional presence and has some coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say other than that these sources didn't show up in the first few pages of Google search results when I searched "Devaki Neogi"--what did show up was promotional outlets advertising her, but not providing the sort of neutral in-depth coverage we expect. I do want to point out that the elle.in article does not mention Devaki Neogi by name, and that the Financial Express and Independent sources merely namedrop her in connection with one work each. The coverage on Comics Alliance is the most significant of all provided sources, and even that one seems to just be an interview with a colleague of Neogi's that gives her some very warm shoutouts. I don't think there's any question that Neogi is an artist for graphic novels and that she has received some recognition in her career, but these mentions don't appear to quite be enough to meet WP:BASIC, WP:GNG Rosguill^talk 17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I just wanted to comment that there is some up and coming notability based on mentions in good sources, but you are right, it is not in depth.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Georgia (country)[edit]

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

This has the purpose of a category but it is formatted as a list. We do not have lists like this for any other country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list like this is not really necessary. It does little to add further new information to the encyclopedia. Vorbee (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, incorrect and invalid deletion arguments. "We do not have lists like this for any other country." List of years in Denmark, List of years in China, List of years in Mongolia, List of years in Thailand, List of years in Andorra... Looks like we actually may have them for every country. So the only deletion rationale offered is a contradiction of WP:NOTDUP without any justification. The lists, on top of simply being the preference of many editors/readers to work with in addition to or instead of categories, can also do two things that the categories cannot: include redlinks, and organize all on one page under clear headers what is broken up in the category structure into subcategories. postdlf (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf and trout nominator because the claim of uniqueness is disproven by two of the navboxes in the article. Any deletion of such a list would need to be applied consistently, and that would require an RFC (which would be all but certain to fail). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, I typed "List of years in" in the search bar and nothing popped up, but that must have been a technical hick-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Functional navigational aid as per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 09:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of military figures by nickname[edit]

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

Nowhere near encyclopedic value. Pure trivia. This is just collection of information for the sake of having another list. T v x1 14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So a page that helps people identify historical figures by nicknames, when they may not know the actual name, has no value? Despite the fact I created the page just for that reason (not, I might say, "for the sake of having another list"). Of course, this is just another effort to delete every damn page I ever created. So what about this? Not notable, I suppose? Or this? No "encyclopedic value", right? Or this? Which has already been deleted once before as "not notable", but didn't stick; go ahead, try again. Or this, clearly no value there, either, right? Just because you don't like it, it has to go, I guess, & that anybody but you might find it useful makes no difference, right? Right. Why don't you try creating a page, rather than working so damn hard to delete them? Oh, wait, then you'd have to put up with my "unencyclopedic" ones... What a tragedy. My Name Is Nobody ^{just shoot me} 14:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a valid argument for keeping an article.T v x1 23:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic and far from trivial. Could use more sourcing on some entries, ~~but it's only new~~. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:LISTN and WP:OR because half the items on the list doesn't cite any sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a (fixable) lack of sourcing on some entries (of a long list) make the whole list fail WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, well if you did that almost half of the entries will disappear. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. That would be remove the unsourced items at worst. SpinningSpark 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not seeing the claimed value of this list as a navigation aid. If a person wants to find a general known as "Butch" for instance, the list is useless unless you already know it exists. The target can be found much more directly from the Butch disambiguation page which points to Butch (nickname) where I find two generals of that name William H. Blanchard and Clyde J. Tate II. That example, by the way, highlights the severe sourcing problems with this page. The pages for both those generals confirm the nickname but they are not on the list. However, Crosbie E. Saint is but his article says nothing about a nickname. It's one thing not to have every item in a list cited, but at the very least the linked article should confirm the fact. If kept, this needs cleaning up big time. SpinningSpark 17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (& not only because I created the page). Yes, completeness is an issue; that presupposes any given editor knows every figure with a given nickname, or knows the list exists. Given the number of editors (& individual pages!), I don't see how that's a fixable problem. That, IMO, does not mean the page itself has no merit; WP itself is a WIP... It does seem the idea of "value" to potential readers does have no merit, however, which puzzles me; "encyclpedic", by definition, would seem to mean "wide coverage", so why does a page that can point readers from nicknames to actual people a bad idea? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A large proportion (well over 50%) of military personnel have had a nickname. We would delete a List of military figures, even if inclusion is by wiki notability, as simply too large a list - this list - a list of all military people, notable ones, with a nickname - is approximately the same order of magnitude of size - failing WP:SALAT. I also doubt that nicknames of all military personnel (from all ages / locations) are discussed a set.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think inclusion criteria can be worked out; there's certainly a WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE issue right now and many of the entries are unsourced redlinks. There's also a List of aviators by nickname. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List of aviators - being much fewer (very few pilots overall - compared to ground crew or greens - though all (or 98%) of pilots have nicknames/callsigns), and being period scoped to the last 100 and a bit years - is 2-3 ordrrs of magnitude less indiscriminate. Icewhiz (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is just a list of arguments to avoid: WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; WP:TRIVIAL; WP:ITSCRUFT. There's no evidence that WP:BEFORE has been followed as it's easy to find sources which show that this passes WP:LISTN. For example: Military Nicknames; Nicknames for Generals. Andrew D. (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could need improvement though, especially sourcing for redlink and nolink entries. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't satisfy it just because you say so. You need to prove WHY it satisfies that.T v x1 22:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This list is way too abstract and either needs expansion or shrinking (and a new, respective title if shrunk), however it still satisfies WP:LISTN. It needs work for sure but should be kept. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (somewhat to my surprise). It seems people are indeed interested and regard this as encyclopedic DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Dorrel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept at AfD in 2005, but we've since developed WP:NPOL and WP:GNG which this woman fails. Cary, North Carolina is certainly not a big enough town to grant a presumption of notability to council members, and there aren't enough non-local sources about this woman to justify keeping the article under GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city council members in cities the size of Cary are very rarely notable and nothing suggests that Dorrel is an exception to that rule. We kept way too many things back in the 00s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL/WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 05:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: participants may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Aberg Robison (2nd nomination). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors receive an automatic presumption of notability only if they serve in major, internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto or London — outside of that narrow range of cities, city councillors are deemed notable only if they can be reliably sourced well enough to qualify as special cases of significantly greater and more nationalized notability than most other city councillors in non-global cities But this is referenced to just two glancing namecheck of her existences in local media pieces that aren't about her to any non-trivial degree, which is not the type or volume of sourcing it takes. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Sidikhina[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Roles do not appear to be notable, nor are they in particularly notable films. Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE.--RTY9099 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 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 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one that fails WP:NACTOR with lack of significant coverage and non notable roles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Song of Spring and Autumn[edit]

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

This show was filmed in 2010 but according to Chinese Wikipedia, never picked up by any TV station. WP:NTV: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network." I would however recommend userfication so that it can be moved back to mainspace in the unlikely event that it gets syndicated. Timmyshin (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Timmyshin. As the creator of the article, I have no objections to it being deleted if it fails WP:NTV. LDS _{contact me} 05:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy one here. No significant coverage that proves notability, with absolutely no information about the network it aired on, or when it exactly aired. Just nothing is present to justify the article. WP:GNG failed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:37, 29 September 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 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suur Komöödiaõhtu[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show. No hits for this show in English. This may be suitable for Estonian Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia and there are absolutely no references. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 05:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a good argument for deletion here? If it's suitable for Estonian Wikipedia, it's suitable for all Wikipedias. We don't need English-language coverage for a topic to be notable. --Michig (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: The article is unsourced and all sources are in Estonian so it is not suitable for English Wikipedia if sources are in Estonian. We need sources that are in English so that it can be covered by an English encyclopedia. If you can find English sources, please feel free to add them but I couldn't. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not need English sources. Sources in any language are acceptable. --Michig (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Michig said, the language of sources are not important in this case, but....to establish WP:GNG it needs *significant* coverage with secondary, reliable sources, something this show and this article do not have. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CleanPix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources 1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are from the company website or the affiliated Bullfrog Power. 4 is from the National Research Council of Canada, which according to 2 (at [10]) funded the company. 2 is derived from 4. From my WP:BEFORE the best I could find was a fairly brief mention in 101 Ways to Promote Your Real Estate Web Site, but even if that counts as a WP:RS, that's still only one source. Tera TIX 13:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC) (5 is a dead link to a likely non-notable award). Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tera TIX 13:36, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My bad, I found the archive link to 5, but as I suspected, it's not a notable award. Tera TIX 11:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The case study can be found here but it in turn states the content is derived from the Canadian Industrial Research Assistance Program where CleanPix was a client, therefore this source isn't intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. The other references are also mainly from connected sources, failing WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and HighKing. desmay (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Guild[edit]

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

Magazine illustrator at turn of 19/20C, for which I can find no coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find any coverage. Just a few examples of his work in gbooks. --Theredproject (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Can't find any sources at all, as of now at least. Handoto (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verma Media[edit]

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

Spammy article where most of the sources are unreliable Forbes contributor and none of the sources provide indepth coverage and analysis per WP:NCORP standard Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 04:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References are not intellectually independent and fail WP:ORGIND, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighKing (talk • contribs)
Delete per reasoning above, as well as the article being written in more of a promotional view. Handoto (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I doubt if sources are independent. One of the references belongs to the founder himself. Dial911 (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sadak 2[edit]

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

See film notability guidelines, and in particular future film guidelines. Unreleased films are not notable unless they are in principal photography and the production itself is notable. There is no mention in this article of principal photography, which can be assumed not to have begun.

This article is clearly incomplete, without a plot section. Draftification would be an option if the film were less than 2 years in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, per WP:NFF, filming has not yet begun. BOVINEBOY2008 15:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The editor who offered the only "keep" opinion later wrote that the sourcing he found may be problematic. Sandstein 15:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Lempel-Ziv[edit]

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

Notability concerns; the only references are primary sources (the research papers introducting the algorithm). power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For reasons noted above. Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LZMA uses a statistical Lempel-Ziv approach[11], but that point doesn't seem to be widely discussed. As such, it might be worth a brief mention in the LZMA article. But I have been unable to find multiple in depth secondary sources discussing these particular primary sources. Hence delete or perhaps merge a sentence into LZMA with the secondary ref above would be reasonable outcomes. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~strong~~ Keep -- A google scholar search (of the name of the article in quotes) [12] shows that a number of the secondary sources do call it by the name created in the original paper. For example [13] says "A variant of the Lempel-Ziv Algorithm called Statistical Lempel-Ziv Compression Algorithm was used in a study to compress text and C files [14]." Rathore [14] has a long section starting: "Statistical Lempel-Ziv was a concept created by Dr. Sam Kwong and Yu Fan Ho in 2001. The basic principle it operates on is that a statistical analysis of the data can be combined with an LZ77-variant algorithm to further optimize what codes are stored in the dictionary." I see enough references in secondary sources by that name to give it a keep. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 10:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC) noting that some of the articles are from a predatory journal.][reply]

@Power~enwiki: @Mark viking: @Meatsgains: Could you all take a look at the sources I dug up and see if you think it is notable? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the research paper has been cited in a few other research papers, that's generally not enough coverage to justify an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rathore article (Y Rathore, MK Ahirwar, R Pandey, "A Brief Study of Data Compression Algorithms", in (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 11, No. 10, October 2013) (the fifth item in this Google scholar search) is not original research but a review of existing research:

Abstract—This paper present survey of several lossless data compression techniques and its corresponding algorithms. A set of selected algorithms are studied and examined. This paper concluded by stating which algorithm performs well for text data.

I am not sure why it has such glaring English grammar errors. Maybe because engineers wrote and reviewed it? :)

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is another review article (Upasana Mahajan, Prashanth C.S.R, "Algorithms for Data-Compression in Wireless Computing Systems", IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL. 14, No.9, September 2014.):

This paper presents the survey of various lossless data compression algorithms. [from Absract]

However, it does appear that that journal may be predatory with a pay-to-play funding scheme. Even though it does show up in Google Scholar. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that journal is on Beall's list here. That calls the secondary sources I had found into question... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify due to agreement of everyone involved (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silvair, Inc.[edit]

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

adverisement, sourcedto press eleases in trade publications. No truly indpendent osurces DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NCORP, which we revised in March of this year. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been moved to Draft space. As it has been suggested by DGG, page has been moved to drafts in order to get improved. I'll let other to stand in as I have a WP:NPOV issue. MichalHobot (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest closing on that basis. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- OK by me.Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 24 September 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) Kpg jhp jm 01:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Pesch House[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 13:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seeing 0 English language sources for this. Looks like creator is under topic ban. NickCT (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This comment should be given minimal weight per WP:NONENG and WP:ATTP — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Note that google immediately suggested that I search "Heinrich Pesch Haus". The turns up descriptions of academic conferences that take place there, distinguished people who have worked there, and similar in both books and journals, almost all in Deutsch, but a few in English and other European languages. Being housed in a handsome, free-standing building/campus is usually an indication that an institution of any kind is significant. Clearly a notable academic conference center for scholarly and socially/economically progressive study and conferences.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references are okay, can pass GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A99F:FB3F:F994:8E6E:C475:1748 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, has coverage in reliable sources sufficient for WP:GNG, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Doncram (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good and reliable sources are presented. 81.153.101.151 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 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.