Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Governance without government

Governance without government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Page created by a CU-blocked sock; the sock's claim that It is a paradigm opposing modern democracy. doesn't appear to be supported by any sources. It doesn't appear to be about any coherent topic beyond what is already described at Governance (which is not focused purely on governance by governments). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's Scientists

Hitler's Scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Book report which merely summarises content Mccapra (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Vinit Singh

Vinit Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Was not able to find a significant reliable coverage from secondary sources that is purely on Vinit Singh. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sello Galane

Sello Galane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unbelievable references, flowery langauge and not clearly notable Legacypac (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete Was declined as lacking notability, whereupon the creator moved it to mainspace without improving it at all. Little, if anything, to indicate notability. No inline references. Not adhering to WP:NPOV. Eagleash (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australindian

Charles A. Didier

Charles A. Didier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:BEFORE searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC. Searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The entire article is reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America1000 10:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The coverage in both the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and The Religious Studies Center article. There is clearly enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. As such, it is not usable to establish notability. The BYU Religious Studies Center article has two paragraphs about the subject. An important matter is that multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America1000 01:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Carlos H. Amado

Carlos H. Amado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable subject that fails to meet WP:BASIC. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing name checks and faint passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability.

The one independent source is listed second in the references section, the 2005 Deseret Morning News Church Almanac. Unfortunately, there is no link, so it's depth of coverage cannot be immediately determined. Despite this, multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one, and various source searches are providing nothing usable to establish notability

The first listed source in the article's references section is from the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, which is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. North America1000 11:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The claim that the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History is a primary source is just plain rubbish. We do not exclude published encyclopedias from being sources because of who their publisher was. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History was edited by 3 respected academics, and should not be ecluded as a source based on who its publisher was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – a book published by a publisher that is owned by an LDS-related holding company, the latter of which is wholly owned by the LDS Church equates to a primary source, in my opinion. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below. North America1000 02:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

  • Your opinion is built to exclude articles on LDS related topics at a very high rate. The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history was edited by three respected academics. Over and over editors have rejected your attempts to use ownership to exclude all sources. This has happened with BYU Studies, the Deseret News, and in the same way should apply to The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History and many other sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History should be treated as a primary source, and has nothing to do with any other Wikipedia content. Primary sources are usable to verify information, but are not usable to establish notability. As a tax-exempt religious organization, the LDS Church avoids directly owning for-profit ventures, because this would threaten its tax-exempt status, so it uses the church-owned Deseret Management Corporation as a holding and management company to own and manage for-profit ventures, one of which is the Deseret Book Company, which publishes the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History. It's all highly interrelated with the LDS Church. North America1000 04:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I neither know about LDS organisation nor do I particularly care. Because LDS is a religious group with unorthodox beliefs, it has little contact with mainstream Christianity. This means that almost anything published about LDS is going to be published by LDS-related organisations. The only other material is likely to be things critical of LDS, i.e. with an anti-LDS POV. There is a case for arguing that the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not an independent source. WP's objection to WP:OR is that it is liable to be unreliable, even the editor's invention or perhaps exaggerated. I used to see WP articles based on an old Catholic Encyclopaedia. Inevitably its editors would have been Catholics and promoting a Catholic POV. We have an article on almost every Anglican bishop in UK and elsewhere and have concluded that such bishops are notable per se. We need someone who understands LDS hierarchies to decide what is the equivalent level to Anglican bishops in the LDS church. I have never seen the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History, but my guess is that it is the equivalent of a specialist biographical dictionary. We accept people in (British) Dictionary of National Biography as almost automatically notable. Even if the Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is not independent, I think we should trust it to be promoting the truth about LDS history and WP may need to accept its editor's judgments as to which LDS leaders are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Valeri V. Cordón

Valeri V. Cordón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. This source listed in the article's references section provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. The remaining three listed sources are primary, which do not establish notability. Several WP:BEFORE source searches, including custom searches, are only providing minor mentions and name checks in independent, reliable sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 12:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The insistence on multiple non-LDS published sources is unreasonable. Cordon is a widely followed figure, his talk in general conference generated a lot of coverage, and he has a significant role in the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but publications that are literally owned and published by the LDS church, such as Liahona and Church News, are entirely primary sources, and are not usable to establish notability. The same goes for Lds.org content, which is the church's website. Religious subjects are not given a free pass for an article on Wikipedia; what's needed is independent coverage in multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage. It's also important to keep WP:SPIP in mind, some of which is listed below.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

North America1000 02:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 15:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

From Hell (album)

From Hell (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

nn recording. I favour redirecting; this keeps being reverted. TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Mailjet

Mailjet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Obvious COI and promotionally written article created and primarily written by a Mailjet and at least one other (if not the same) COI user, consisting mostly of enticement over all the cool things the product can do. Meanwhile, I find scant mention of this product in independent reliable sources, so notability is not established. Of the sources cited, most are press releases or rote announcements about capital raising. One of the TechCrunch articles helps, but it isn't enough. Largoplazo (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaesang Pangarep

Kaesang Pangarep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

obvious spam. On top of the promotional pressure for the subject, this has also been subjected to the bizarre "Taslimson Foundation" spamming (see ANI) -- see this removal of my speedy nomination and restoring of Taslimson spam.) And bragging about high school grades in the lead? really? TOOSOON at best - promo junk currently. Jytdog (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —AE (talkcontributions) 02:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: president's son, notable Youtuber, subject of a controversy that made it to national news, not to mention the buttload of national coverage. Some pruning of unencyclopedic language is in order, but there is plenty of useful and properly sourced content left in there and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
None of those are reasons to keep, in Wikipedia. The "controversy" is a WP:BLP1E social-media-circus that doesn't have long term significance. This is just gossipy trash. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: What does the "Taslimson Foundation" spam even has to do with the article? Sources are fine and person easily passes GNG Juxlos (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please respond to each other's arguments instead of merely asserting your belief.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Almost every source is primary. There are plenty of bottling companies, the only notable thing about this one it's large, but that doesn't warrant an entire article. That fact could be a simple mention in the articles on Coca-Cola and/or Charlotte, North Carolina. Surachit (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:58, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

J. Albert Towner

J. Albert Towner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable accountant, inadequate RS found to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Javablackbelt

Javablackbelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lacks sources, inadequate RS found in search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Elixir Web Solutions

Elixir Web Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy notability. Most mentions in searches are related to directories and job portals. Author also seems to have a COI going by the username. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Theresa Fairbanks Harris

Theresa Fairbanks Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

GNG Fail. Article sources and a general search do not show enough RS to establish notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Clyde Markwell

Clyde Markwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not seem notable for inclusion, since the subject's only claim to notability is being president of a trade organization. WP:MILL architect. Sourcing is non-existent and I couldn't find better in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they offer the same claim of notability for inclusion and provide the same level of sourcing:

Mervyn Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
Alan Barnes (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL RetiredDuke (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Katerina Grolliou

Katerina Grolliou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Both article and a general search do not show in-depth coverage of subject in RS. GNG Fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedian of the Year

Wikimedian of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV about the award itself since the last AfD. Only passing mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep This information needs to stay, one reason - Wikipedia:Inherent notability. But according to nomination reason WP:SIGCOV, maybe it can be shifted to a different namespace such as Wikipedia rather than main namespace. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Keith Patrick

Keith Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:ACTOR as he hasn't starred in any notable film, tv show or other. Article only cites IMDb and I was unable to find enough coverage in a WP:BEFORE for him to clear the general notability guidelines. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Melody Johnson

Melody Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

May not meet notability for basketball players. Also, references are sorely lacking. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015

British Army Land Forces, 2007-2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

It has very little relevance as a article across dates of no significant value and better to be either merged with Structure of the British Army or related pages Sammartinlai (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete, article has no references and no significant value. Gavbadger (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Redencion 911

Redencion 911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Please note, the number of AfDs is misleading - the original nominator accidentally nominated it twice at the time, so the page labelled as the second AfD is effectively the first.

This was kept at AfD in 2008 because it was asserted that Masapunk was one of the biggest indie/punk labels in Iberoamerica. I'm not sure that's the case. I wasn't able to find any sources discussing Masapunk in an in-depth manner. They don't have an article on this or any other Wikipedia (and I checked under Masapunk and Massapunk). The website for the label is defunct and no new one comes up on a Google search. To sum up: claim of significance under WP:NBAND #5 doesn't hold water.

Speaking of sources, I didn't find any discussing Redencion 911 in any depth either. The appearances in Maximumrocknroll are an interview (primary source, no notability) and a tour diary (same thing basically). The Revista Punto Final link in the article is dead for me and I couldn't find it on archive.org. The band doesn't have an article on any other wiki, so no sources to poach. Usual caveat, I'm an English speaker so I'm not great with Spanish-speaking sources; will withdraw if there are reliable ones located. ♠PMC(talk) 20:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 12:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions

List of Candace Whittemore Lovely exhibitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

List of exhibitions. Wikipedia is not a place to post one's resume or CV. The only references are press releases and a permanent dead link (not archived). Vexations (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Limited merge. A few of the more significant exhibitions can be included in the main article but this great big list has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you have suggestions as to which notable exhibitions (with citations) might be included? Vexations (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Davide di Benedetto

Davide di Benedetto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Driver who haven't raced in any professional racing series, and haven't any significant achievements, fails any WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. Corvus tristis (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Puneet Kaura

Puneet Kaura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Very much a CV with promotional elements. See WP:NOTPROMO. Otherwise failing WP:BIO. The sources are very much primary and read like PR. Most claims are not independent, but mentioned by the subject. The sources indicate a CEO doing his job and talking about it. Little in terms of independent, secondary coverage about the subject as opposed to what the subject talks about. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

India's Next Top Model (season 4)

India's Next Top Model (season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nothing to indicate this show meets notability requirements. Article creator repeatedly adds unsourced minutia and refuses to add sources when requested. Ravensfire (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

7layers

7layers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A directory-like listing on an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is routine announcements; passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Janslovic with few other contributions. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Not independently notable of the parent company and appears too insignificant to be worth a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep - The 7layers entry complies with the notability guidelines. There has been significant coverage of the subject in reliable, indepedent third party sources, such as the German Focus Money (magazine) (a), the Financial Times (b), or the German Markt & Technik (c, e & f) and in literature (d)."

a) - Focus Money b) - Financial Times c) - Markt & Technik d) Freie Fahrt für freie Maschinen : zur Ethik des vernetzen Autos coverage from Springer Publishing] e) - Markt & Technik f) - Markt und Technik --Sailorway (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hridi Haq

Hridi Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Notability? Didn't pass WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess you did WP:BEFORE, but doesn't she pass WP:NACTOR? --nafSadh did say 16:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't find anything notable. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I do remember seeing her on television on more than a few occasions and would think she is notable. However, I could not find much source to establish her notability either. --nafSadh did say 19:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep She is well know actress. Not only television drama she also involve with theater for a long time. As an actress-TV director-scriptwriter she has been involved with Nagorik Nattayangan (a renown theater group) for long. But the article is too small, its may need added information. Niloy (keep talking) 10:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you come up with some reliable sources on her? I couldn't find much. --nafSadh did say 15:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Saeed Al Ghaith

Saeed Al Ghaith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There are very few hits on Google, there is only one link at List of United Arab Emirates-related topics (which most UAE-related articles are linked to) and this is a stub. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Saleh Al Shal

Saleh Al Shal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There is only one reference and all the hits I found are the mirror copy of this Wikipedia article. Also, just because someone is a millionaire, it doesn't make them notable in anyway. This fails WP:GNG. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard May (speedway rider)

Richard May (speedway rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lacking media coverage which is enough to fail the WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article says he rode for only two teams, as if the article is trying to say he is not all that notable. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wadi quda'ah

Wadi quda'ah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks more like a WP:DEL7 case so far than a WP:DEL8 case. The article was created by an IP-editor back in 2005. I had a look at their global contributions, especially their contributions on Arabic Wikipedia, but that gave me no further clue to the location. "35 km north-east of Ras Al Khaimah" brings us into Oman. I had a look at the maps in the area of Sha'am, but nothing is named "Wadi Quda'ah", AFAICT. Allow me to pin Alexandermcnabb. Sam Sailor 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sam Sailor: If this place cannot be found anywhere, then this is probably a hoax and by far it could be a hoax that has been extant the longest. 13 years and 7 months if we count tomorrow. It could make the top of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia if this is indeed a hoax and I have a strong suspicion that it is as it is nowhere on Google Maps. This for verification that it is not a place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Sam Sailor: You were looking in the wrong spot for a place of a slightly different name. SportingFlyer talk 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything about this subject other than mirror sites replicating our article. Even if the village exists, Sam Sailor is correct - 35 km North East of Ras Al Khaimah would be in Oman, so at least one of the assertions in this single sentence article is demonstrably false. Ditch it. GirthSummit (blether) 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Wadi Qada'a. The place certainly exists but with a slightly different transliteration and is not a hoax full of caracals and rock climbing opportunities, with co-ordinates listed here: [1] and other coverage [2] [3] [4] [5]. Also a mention here: [6] I think the "about 35 kilometers northeast" is a bit misleading as this is likely the distance by car (possibly from 14 years ago) and not as the crow flies. I'm also not sure if it's a valley or a settlement from English language sources, but I think it passes WP:GEOLAND or WP:GEOFEAT either way. SportingFlyer talk 12:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, SportingFlyer, I am actually looking deeper now, and it seems to exist. Here is what I have found so far looking for transliteration alternatives:
Lancaster, W.; Lancaster, F. (2011). Honour Is in Contentment: Life Before Oil in Ras Al-Khaimah (UAE) and Some Neighbouring Regions. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des islamischen Orients. De Gruyter. p. 246. ISBN 978-3-11-022340-8. Retrieved 21 October 2018. In Wadi Quda', a Habus recalled, “We had a few date trees on our higher fields. Before, we used to buy our dates or work for them in places on the sayh like ...
Tribulus, The Journal of the Emirates Natural History Group, vol. 3, no. 1, April 1993, p. 23: "...been confused with the Ethiopian Hedgehog. (Pargechinus aethiopicus dorsalis), of which two reports of road casualties were received from the Wadi Quda'a ..."
Tribulus, The Journal of the Emirates Natural History Group, vol. 3, no. 2, October 1993, p. 23: "...one dead in the Wadi Quda'a on March 12th ..."
Sam Sailor 12:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep if it is a genuine village. scope_creep (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Sam Thanks for the ping. It may well be a thing, but can we stand up GNG on a dead hedgehog? It's likely an area rather than 'a legally recognised settlement' and it's clearly not notable other than for our two dimensional friends... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinocchio's Pizza

Pinocchio's Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This undoubtedly notable locally business does not meet our notability standards. There is only one discussion in detail, and that comes from a college newspaper, which are seldom held to be WP:RS. It does not even appear to make WP:GNG, as there is only the one discussion in detail and it is from a sketchy source. It certainly does not make WP:ORG, esp WP:CORPDEPTH, as it does not have any sources (other than a Facebook post) from outside Metro Boston. John from Idegon (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I hear where you're coming from, but here's why I think it's a notable article.

  • I mentioned that Sally's Apizza and Modern Apizza both have their own Wikipedia pages, with comparable (or perhaps slightly worse) quality of citations. I would say that Pinocchio's is comparably notable as those two pizzerias in New Haven. But I actually think the better example is the Tasty Sandwich Shop (The Tasty), which is in many ways comparable to Pinocchio's:
    • Both are famous as Harvard institutions, and in particular famous late-night institutions.
    • Both are part of the story of the gentrification of Harvard Square (The Tasty closing, Pinocchio's moving), a well documented phenomenon.
    • Both are famous, in part, because of regular references in literature and film (Good Will Hunting mentioned The Tasty, Suits and The Social Network mention/show Pinocchio's, among a bunch of others for both).
    • Both have citations that over-index on Boston but include some national coverage.
  • I would say your general point on student newspapers would be true, but The Harvard Crimson is actually used quite often as a reference on Wikipedia, so it seems to command the necessary credibility.
  • I do think there needs to be more color and detail, that can be worked on as more people see and add to the page. You will, however, find it referenced in national publications, sometimes in the context of the pizza but usually in the context of Harvard.

With all that said, I appreciate your thoughtfulness here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCarlsonIV (talkcontribs) 21:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - First, CarlCarlsonIV, it is very important that you sign your comments here (and elsewhere too). It is also important that you read the instructions for participating at AfD linked at the top right of the page. Once you do, you will see two things. First, you have not actually !voted here yet, and also, that WP:OTHERSTUFF is seldom a persuasive argument here. Fame =/= notability. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Noted. for the reasons outlined above, I think we should keep this article. CarlCarlsonIV (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. We are obligated to search for alternatives to deletion (see wp:ATD). This place is not just any pizza joint, it is apparently on Harvard Square. As for Times Square and maybe the Ginza and some other specific commercial hubs, perhaps there is room/need for a list or table of commercial establishments there. These are landmarks visited by millions, literally, cumulatively. How about a list-table entry for this, as a merge/redirect target, within the Harvard Square article?
Also, Harvard Square Historic District (covered in Harvard Square article) is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Its NRHP nomination document can't be linked directly, but is accessible by clicking on the small image "NR" at this MACRIS page. It doesn't mention pizza AFAICT, but it lists 66 Winthrop and 69 Winthrop and other addresses on Winthrop (see page 25), but not 74 Winthrop, the stated address for Pinocchio's Pizza. However Pinocchio's may in fact be in a historic building which is a contributing building to the district. Street address numbers change sometimes and buildings are often listed at multiple street addresses. Can someone who knows the place consult the NR document and try to sort this out? --Doncram (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment To the above, if you look at the PDF in the INV tab on the MACRIS site ([7]) and go to page 35, the building highlighted on the corner of Winthrop and Boylston (now JFK) Streets is the Pinocchio's building. Not sure why it doesn't show up in the directory, however—maybe it's a building that has two different address, and the Pinocchio's address isn't the one they selected. That's speculative though. The pictures between 37-45 aren't great, but pictures 13 and 14 do pretty clearly put the location in the technical boundaries of Harvard Square. ----Eddy23 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Eddy23, Doncram - if you are advocating a redirect to Harvard Square as an ATD, please articulate that. I would be happy to support that as an ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, then merge/redirect. --Doncram (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, I do think it's notable enough and has enough independent media coverage (among other things) to back that up. --Eddy23 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The college newspaper isn't the only sources, by any means. Also, college papers generally pass WP:RS, the main problem with them is in independence rather than reliability, which isn't an issue when it comes to a pizza place. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have started a sockpuppet investigation, so please wait until it is closed. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 21:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheiron Records

Cheiron Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable record label re-created again by editor with what I strongly believe to be an undeclared COI. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete none of the issues raised in the previous AfD have been addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 19:29, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has clear credible media sources and any label under Capitol Music and Universal getting mainstream news coverage is notable. The issue in the previous AfD appears to have been adequately addressed by the new article's author, so I respectfully disagree with you on this point Rosguill. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no conflict of interest and have based my updated article on current newsworthy mainstream entertainment media sources. The article has been updated using such appropriately , and I even made a new edit to satisfy the question of any unclear connection to the old Cheiron Studios. If anybody wants to disagree with my article updates that is one thing, but let's stay away from any inaccurate conflict of interest accusations based on one editor's strong opinion. Thank you. --Music2015 (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should be a Stub for now with AfD consideration withdrawn. --2603:9001:305:6F00:F5E9:1FD2:9F28:3A54 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Not commenting on the reliability of the sources, the first source gives a drive-by mention, and the second source does not mention the label at all. Therefore WP:GNG is not close to being met. My standards on notability for record labels are looser than most, but this is not notable by record label standards in that it has no length of history, no roster of notable artists, and can not claim to have made any perceptible impact on the direction of any particular genre. Having a joint venture (distribution deal) with a major label does not inherit notability for a record label. Now.... if Rhames goes on to have a #1 record, or even begins to sniff the charts, then we can re-evaluate, but at the very best this is WP:TOOSOON. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 23:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be some longstanding disagreement going back a few years between the two primary contributors to this article. While I respect everybody's opinions and previous contributions, I simply see no justification for the deletion of this article at this time, especially with regards to other record labels of way lesser note which have had their articles remain intact, with the goal of improving upon said articles. This record label clearly passes the smell test for both notability and credibility in today's music industry, as both the article's references and a quick web search reaffirm. You do make some interesting points 78.26, and I respect your passion about this article's subject matter, but nevertheless I must again disagree with you about your proposed deletion of this article, be it due to WP:TOOSOON or otherwise. I think Music2015's update was justified and the article should remain, albeit with further improvements as time goes by. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I simply do not see anything new at all which has changed in the interim to sway my opinion from the previous AfD discussion above. I do agree with the editor who "stubbed" this article (again) recently though, as this article is the perfect Record Label Stub type article in my opinion while more notable information and reliable sources get added to it over time. --68.202.197.64 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete fails the general notability guideline. Keep voters' arguments are a mix of "other stuff exists" and pointing at nonexistent "clear credible media sources". Note to closer: IPs have not edited outside this AfD and 68.202.197.64 has !voted twice. TeraTIX 01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete clear WP:GNG fail. Last AfD was a redirect, no issue if that's the ultimate decision here. SportingFlyer talk 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Zero coverage, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP as a business. No redirect, as it will just get recreated, unless protection is applied. scope_creep (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cheiron Studios. Not creating a redirect that would be useful for the sole reason of "might be recreated" is not a good reason not to have the redirect; that's what protection is for.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

AFL Heritage Round

AFL Heritage Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The event itself, which lasted for six years during the 2000s decade, attracted nothing other than WP:ROUTINE coverage from sportswriters at the time. The only source given on this page is an enthusiast's site which documents images of VFL/AFL club guernseys. Conclusion can be drawn that this was never truly a notable event. Aspirex (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:GNG in period sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] SportingFlyer talk 21:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Two of those sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of the then upcoming heritage round, and the other two are nostalgia articles which happen to mention Heritage Round's existence but which give no actual coverage of the event itself. These do not do enough to satisfy GNG for this topic. Aspirex (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • They are feature articles about an upcoming event; I strongly disagree with you they're routine sources, and will try to fix the article up. SportingFlyer talk 22:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep There are more references available, even if some of them are not the best ones. There is sufficient NEXIST to support GNG. First thought was to merge with Australian Football League or similar but there is sufficient content and due weight for a split if it was there so keep as a separate article. Aoziwe (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • weak keep more merge with the individual seasons aka 2003 AFL season, 2004 AFL season which have sections for each round anyway. I think a soft redirect with statement on what the heritage round concept was and linking back to each season it was played. Gnangarra 14:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge to the individual seasons, the heritage round results are already there in the 2003, 2004 season articles but with no prose. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Richard Wilbur Award

Richard Wilbur Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This poetry award has an "entry fee is $25 per manuscript, and the award is $1000". Sounds like a vanity award to me, rather than something notable. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 23:29, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
1985 Sandra Reyes for Nicanor Parra's Sermones y prédicas del Cristo de Elqui (Sermons and Teachings of the Christ of Elquí)
1986 Roger Greenwald and William Mishler for Paal-Helge Haugen's Stone Fences.[15] StrayBolt (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ Richard Wilbur The New Yorker
  2. ^ There Once Was a Poet from L.A. (Los Angeles Times, Nov. 24, 2002)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that 15 of the 21 winners have their own articles is enough to convince me of notability. The fact that Amazon refer to it in the titles of entries like this, this and this is also persuasive. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Not unlike the Hopwood Award at the University of Michigan, which included Arthur Miller among its recipients. 7&6=thirteen () 11:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Vanity awards are more likely to charge you $1000 to enter and to present you with $25 if you win. Narky Blert (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I would not use those reasons for notability. My award (which I just made up) has articles for ALL the winners, all of which are either Nobel, Pulitzer, or Publishing Clearing House winners. I think Amazon mentions the award in the title because it is the subtitle of the book. And now we should find some RSs for the Hopwood Award too. StrayBolt (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
However, once the award is established as notable, we can (probably) leave the red links assuming the winners are or will become notable. StrayBolt (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a misleading nomination, as an entry fee or prize money has nothing at all to do with notability. My bigger concern is I can't find anything reliable that's not a non-primary source (evansville.edu). The Amazon blurbs don't count, unfortunately - they're being used to sell the book. None of the articles linked mention the award anything other than in passing. "Poets and Writers" mentions Robert Crawford's win almost in passing, but perhaps there's text cut off? I'm probably a "weak delete" vote at the moment, but there's enough passing mentions of it around where I don't really care if it's kept, but I would love to see more reliable sources which significantly cover the award. SportingFlyer talk 13:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Small poetry prize created by two exceedingly notable people. Cant see anything wrong with it. Poets live in the sticks, and that combined with the prestigious names attached to it, would suspect the prize would very be welcome. scope_creep (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Lexi Love

Lexi Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

After I reverted an edit that outed her, the subject contacted me privately and requested that her article be deleted since it is disruptive to her life. Since her notability is relatively low, I suggest we grant her request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete although not for the nominated reasons. The refs are very poor and fail to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   17:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete FWIW, a google appears there is/are more than one performer who goes by the name "Lexi Love?" I'm no expert, but wouldn't that muddy the water? Otherwise, I agree that she's low on the notability scale in all categories. Sources are marginal if not outright inadequate. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought we had strict notability requirements for pornographic performers – major industry awards or something? I don't know exactly what those might be, but I don't see any claim or attempt to demonstrate that she satisfies the requirement. She surely isn't notable for anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The subject is reliably described as having become prominent under her real name, with coverage in national media like The New York Times and CBS News online. Whether the association is strong enough to meet our BLP standards is debateable, but the timing of this request lends credibility to the association. I don't believe we should suppress accurate information from Wikipedia at the request of one party to a dispute, because the more widely it is known the more likely it is to weaken their position in that dispute. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • So is there a reliable source that makes that connection? Does this real name national coverage overcome WP:BLP1E? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz where is the New York Times article and CBS coverage you are referring to? It could help me make a more informed i-vote. I couldn't find it , but I also don't know what real name you are referring to, and perhaps that could help the search for sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Given that Lexi Love has edited her article and without explicit association from the RS, posting it publicly violates our BLP standards and is considered WP:OUTING. Oversight has already scrubbed an attempt to out her within the past week.[16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That's a gross misuse of WP:OUTING, which should not be applied to suppress openly published information about a public figure. "Love" herself acknowledges the information to be accurate, since it was originally taken from the WIPO trademark case, published in news reports of the case, and is he basis for "Love" saying she won back the domain name incorporating her stage name. This is not a case of protecting privacy. This is a case of a public figure, whose recent activities have been covered in national media like the NY Times, trying to suppress now-embarassing public information that can easily be seen as casting doubt on her credibility in a very public dispute. That's not something Wikipedia should be a party to, and it's disturbing that admins have placed their thumbs on the scales to limit discussion of basic issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Ahuh. Despite your liberties in presuming her motives, where are the reliable sources associating the two again? I don't see them in the article? Is it due to your lack of experience adding content to articles? Are you relying on trademark cases that fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY? Isn't keeping the article in the hopes that a reliable source will make this association make this a case of blue crystal balls? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I found her real name with a bit of digging, but given that I can only find mention of that name in reliable sources in relation to one news story, and that "Lexi Love" or her past isn't mentioned at all in the coverage of that story, is there a valid reason to keep this article under its current name and in its current form as it stands? Richard3120 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per arguments by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, see above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines

Second Lady or Second Gentleman of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Original research and the article is unsourced. There is no such thing as a second lady or second gentleman in the Philippines or at least there is no coverage of such by reliable sources. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This is supposed to be the Vice President's equivalent of the First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines, an informal title referring to the host/hostess of the Malacanang Palace for presidential events which just happens to be the spouse of the incumbent president. Note that the vice president entry also includes a daughter of the current female vice president so the scope includes non-spouses. And the term may not event exist and just be a neologism to imitate the US equivalent when not even national Philippine media outlets has occasionally covered spouses of the Vice President.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Draftify as this is totally unsourced but may actually exist as a term however unlikely this might seem. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
This deletion discussion had literally no keep arguments based on policy or guidelines. A summary of the comments is it's useful or "I don't have a problem with this article". --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rename per Power~enwiki. While the individual entries in this list aren't original research, the title of the list is.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 07:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
The claim of incumbent Leni Robredo's daughter holding the role of "Second Lady" is unsupported by a reliable source. I don't think we can just ignore the fact that the article claims that her daughter is "second lady" and rename this article as "Second spouse" when the current VP's daughter is obviously not her spouse. If the consensus is to keep and rename this article. That part of this article definitely has to go.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete: I think the bottom line here is there is no sourcing, and doesn't appear to be any forthcoming. Aside from notability not being inherited, one of the core tenets of Wikipedia is verifiability. Notability is also not inherited. If we look at it as a list of people, then WP:LISTBIO applies, which this fails. If we look it as a definition of a neologism, then WP:NOTNEO applies, which states: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Sourcing is the primary distinguishing characteristic, it seems, between the US version of the article and this one - the US version has a great deal of sourcing even though it is also problematic in it's own way. Waggie (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WWE Mayhem

WWE Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "WWE Mayhem" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD (no reason given). Original concern: "Non-notable iOS game. Apart from a Touch arcade article, seems to have no coverage." Upon review, concurring: non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources (WP:VRS), such as WP:VG/RS. The only vetted source is the TouchArcade review. All other hits appear to be run-of-the-mill blogs and app aggregators. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Further to my original PROD. Non-notable. Only one notable source, in Touch Arcade. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge - Redirect To WWE Games, I think you can have a paragraph on mobile games there. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a good redirect target. But there is nothing to merge, since the only reliable source is not even used in the article. Also note that I MOVEREQed that page, as its title is afoul of MOS:VG. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry (2017 film)

Sorry (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nominating this page again for deletion. This is a non-notable film which is not released. The motive of this is only vandalism and advertisment/ promotion of the film. Most contributors are socks and have been globally locked. Socks are used to fool wikipedia about it's release. From the creation of the article it was shown that this film will release on September 2017 it's almost 14 months passed yet no release. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 08:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as there are enough sources for WP:GNG to be passed. Also, this is a disruptive nomination as the previous afd by the same nominator resulted in keep on 26 August 2018 so this is a challenge of that decision that should have gone to deletion review not another AFD so soon and that is why there should be some limit on the time period for renomination of kept articles, personally I would say 3 years but at least 6 months Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: Is it ok to support a film article which really doesn't exists?. It's all hoax and seems paid news for promotion of the film. I don't mind to keep it if it's released, but almost a year now its only postponed dates used for this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's truly liable for deletion under WP:NFF --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 04:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi, was the film shown at the film festival mentioned and did it win the awards listed? I can't get the refs to load today, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Atlantic306: as I see the article Ambarnath Film Festival again it's made by one of the socks of Ivan. I doubt that article was created to support this article, yet that article is notable and has its own importance. With this article in question there is no reliable source to prove that the film received an award. The links added to the same in the article are if a local newspaper and the website is live and everyday new news comes on that so is hard to find out the authenticity of the source. Again this may be done intentionally by the sock to provide fake citations. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hardcover Mysteries (TV series)

Hardcover Mysteries (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable show that clearly fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and supported by WP:TVSERIES for absence of reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: This one is very borderline. I've found one source, THR, that may contribute to notability, though only marginally. I've added a second source to the article, but it's basically a WP:PRIMARY press release which doesn't contribute to establishing notability at all. The existing NY Post source in the article does contribute to notability, as a full-fledged review. But, all in all, this probably isn't enough – if more secondary sources can't be found, this one probably doesn't quite cut it in notability terms. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Evil Stepmothers

Evil Stepmothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non notable show that clearly fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG and supported by WP:TVSERIES for absence of reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet Journal

Internet Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not sure how is this subject notable from the references seen in the article (and was not able to find anything else). The first one is just listing the information which does not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep Internet journal is the one of major IT newspaper in Myanmar, and itself establish sufficient notability. see journal cover. EpcMyanmar (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure I see the proof it is a major IT newspaper, nor how a cover makes it notable. It needs multiple reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • CommentNon notable?? wtf!! you can see Facebook page with 697K Like and verified badge, it clearly seen notable newspaper.EpcMyanmar (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Again, according to Wikipedia guidelines for notability, it needs secondary sources to be considered notable just like I said in my nomination, supported by WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Facebook likes do not establish notability for Wikipedia, sources do.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

James Martin (English actor)

James Martin (English actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Not notable. A brief career as a child actor in minor roles and the only attributions are to IMDb. CallyMc (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Jörg Klebingat

Jörg Klebingat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. This source found in a search provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are necessary, not just one. Various WP:BEFORE searches have only provided name checks and minor passing mentions in usable sources, and the article itself is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 05:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Second Class Citizens

Second Class Citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unremarkable unreleased film. Slight, but ultimately not significant, media coverage of the three released promos. Catrìona (talk) 05:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete does not pass WP:NFILM as an unmade project with minor coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Zay

Matthew Zay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

fails WP: NHOCKEY and WP: GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 03:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and being all-conference in college does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Suwayfah

Suwayfah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I thought the mass deletion of the UAE stubs were over but it isn't. The coordinates for this place points to the sea which is a very strange place to find a "location" and it fails WP:V. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 10:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: The pin is in the water, that we could fix. Judging from a map, it would be a settlement of Dibba Al-Fujairah on the Ras Dibba headland. There are a few hits on "suwayfah" dibba; could Alexandermcnabb weigh in here? Sam Sailor 10:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't read too much into the pin being in the water at all. It's possibly accurate, but it's only precise to several kilometers with only decimals and minutes - no seconds. That being said, I have no opinion of the article itself. SportingFlyer talk 12:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: At Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I'm trying to get access to the table of contents and index of the cited source so people can request specific page numbers to verify content. The source was cited but with no page numbers :( WhisperToMe (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Suwayfah's a thing, which is why it survived the cull. As Sam says, we can fix the pin. But Suwayfah's one of the rare nuggets of gold in that big, brown pile... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Found this [17] Seems to be close to shore. scope_creep (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Molly Garnier

Molly Garnier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

the sourcing (in the article and in a search) is of too poor quality to sustain GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:59, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I made an effort to fix some of the dead links, but found that the mentions of Garnier in the cited sources are very limited; mostly single sentences. That is not significant critical attention or significant coverage. I have not found any additional meaningful coverage in a search. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edge of Twilight (series)

Edge of Twilight (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Unnecessary "... (series)" article. Edge of Twilight (video game), while notable, remains unreleased, with two mobile releases without articles. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 09:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per nominator's own words: There are three games, so there is a series. Whether all games have articles is irrelevant. In fact, those not having articles means a series article is useful to have some place to include that information which would be misplaced at Edge of Twilight (video game) and lost if the series article was deleted (thus violating WP:PRESERVE). Regards SoWhy 10:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Well, there are two released mobile titles, which haven't met stand-alone notability apparently. Looking through the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, there are some sources, but nothing that would merit expanding into separate articles. Edge of Twilight was eventually released in June 2016 on Steam, to little fanfare. I'm hesitant to believe the article will see an expansion soon. Since the two mobile titles are already mentioned at Edge of Twilight (video game), why not organize into a single, encompassing article? Or, if I can make another suggestion, instead of deleting, why not merge "Edge of Twilight (video game)" into "Edge of Twilight (series)"? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    Unless the mobile games are mobile versions of Edge of Twilight (video game), which they don't appear to be, they would be misplaced in that article. And if Edge of Twilight (video game) is notable on its own, there is no reason to merge it into the series article. Per WP:CSC, stand-alone lists are acceptable for topics that do warrant independent articles but should still be included, which imho applies to the mobile games here. The question is: Why force the removal the series article which serves as an overview for three distinct games? Neither alternative you envision seems better than the status quo. Regards SoWhy 11:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    they would be misplaced in that article Not particularly true. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge the series content into the video game article per the nominator. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SekChek Classic

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

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

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

Louis Brouillard

Louis Brouillard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

So the question is this; is someone who has been accused, but never convicted of serious offences actually notable? My thoughts are that this should be merged to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Guam, but delete & redirect might also be a valid outcome. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Black Kite: I am still waiting for some resolution on the subject of WP:BLPCRIME as he died after admitting to crimes he was never convicted of and it isn't even clear if the subject should be covered here at all. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete There may be a place to mention Brouillard in a larger article, but a stand alone article is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases#Guam. But as he was never charged so never convicted the target needs updating and sourcing as it incorrectly states that he was "charged for having raped altar boys". The article may need copyediting as the aforementioned phrase poses a problem as there is a clear presumption of guilt in the phrasing. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am not comfortable with an article that covers allegations remaining on Wiki without adjudication, even with the subject now deceased. I also believe it should not be merged and placed on another Wiki page with mention of the allegation. Once the charge has an outcome, I will take another look. Otherwise, I believe it should be deleted, not merged, until there is a finality to the allegations. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. National level coverage of the allegations.[18][19][20][21][22]. National level coverage of his death (obit level coverage) - AP, USA Today. As for these being merely "allegations" - beyond his relocation from Guam, Brouillard has admitted his role,[23] and has signed an affidavit admitted 20 or more cases.[24] Given the admission by the subject himself, the lack of criminal justice (due to statute of limitations(?) and his being deceased) is not an issue. Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME warns us about including information about accusations of crimes for which the person was not convicted. Confessions are not convictions. History is full of people acquitted of crimes they did not commit but who had signed confessions to these crimes, this can be for a multitude of reasons: police pressure or torture, misplaced guilt, psychological problems, to protect the real authors etc etc. I am not a lawyer but I presume that despite the confession there would have been a trial had the statute of limitations not have prevented it and the court would have examined the confession and its circumstances to see if it was admissable or not. This is all part of due process and necessary to convict. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Surge activism

Surge activism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Clear WP:NORG failure. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage - the Miami one simply name-drops them, there's brief coverage of a petition they launched, the other sources are WP:PRIMARY or don't mention the organisation at all. A WP:BEFORE search brought up nothing I could see that would help it get over the tough WP:NORG hurdle. SportingFlyer talk 06:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surge is an international grassroots animal rights organization. There are marches and events around the world associated with this organization. It is notable. Steven02511 (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You say it's notable, but do you have any reliable sources unrelated to the organisation which significantly covers the organisation? SportingFlyer talk 12:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Marx's theory of history

Marx's theory of history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

As per my comments on Talk:Marx's theory of history, I've marked this page for deletion as it is almost entirely devoid of citations, and the historical materialism page (which covers the same topic) is clearly superior. Having two pages discussing Marx's theory of the materialist conception of history is redundant and confusing; I am speaking from experience as someone with approximately two years of studying Marxism under my belt - these two pages confused the hell out of me when I set out to learn. The concepts covered here are already covered (with proper citations) in mode of production. Time for this page to go where it belongs: the dustbin of history. RnRa76 (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment So what is the objection to this becoming a redirect? It seems like a likely search term to me. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Historical materialism as they do appear to be the same thing. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for Karl Marx says "Historical materialism — Marx’s theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power." Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge This is one of many pages about Marxism and was created as a large spinout from that main page in 2007. The topic is obviously very notable and any further development should be done using ordinary editing not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect The claim that this material was split from the Marxism article, lacking the nuance placed on such a claim by the adverb "inappropriately", is somewhat misleading. Any material that could have been merged into Historical materialism should have been done so in 2007, rather than splitting an article off into a content fork. The HM page dates back to at least June 2001[25] (which apparently was in the days when Wikipedia was more lax about preserving page histories, as the main Marxism article was apparently "created" four months later by an edit that removed several tens of thousands of bytes from the page[26]). If anything is worth merging, no harm will be done by preserving it in the page history.

Nina Robertson

Nina Robertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

WP:BLP1E [Username Needed] 11:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep A simple count looks like three events to me. Aoziwe (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete still a non-notable beauty pageant contestant, no matter how many events you count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • At the very least, redirect to Miss Earth Australia, where the subject is mentioned; a valid search term (WP:ATD-R). North America1000 16:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Significant coverage in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Is not just known for one pageant. BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Ekman

Alexander Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Purely promotional and nothing notable. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple significant mentions in WP:RS. Here are some:[27] [28] [29] [30]. [31]. It's overly promotional and the English needs work, but that's fixable and quality problems like that have never been a valid reason for deletion. Sjö (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - or indeed speedy keep (Zackmann08, I see where you're coming from, but this could perhaps be withdrawn). He is indubitably fully notable, despite the appalling state of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Speedy keep (Zackmann08, He is a notable as many references are added, I tried to fix some issues. You can also fix English or styling issues, instead of nominating it for deletion remove the specific points which looks like a promotional contents. I agree with Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - and close. This one covers WP:GNG per good references.BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Zackmann08 (talk · contribs), a minute before nominating this for deletion, you removed a long list of his productions for a large number of national ballets and other leading dance companies. Whether you like the way the list looked or not, it should have given you a clue; you can't have a resumé like that and not be notable as a choreographer. --Hegvald (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Speedy keep. Someone remove the deletion tag. Now it must be closed. He is notable and we have seen there are enough references to prove the validity of his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alina Zahra (talkcontribs) 12:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • While the discussion is open, the deletion notice shouldn't be removed (removal would hide this discussion for anybody looking up Ekman's article), and the discussion will be closed by an administrator in due time. --Hegvald (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

IceTowers

IceTowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Article has existed for over a decade and has attracted no references at all so far. Google News turned up only one inadequate hit, Google Books showed nothing relevant for this topic. No awards won, no evidence of subject-specific notability. Maybe it is time to let this one go as not notable? A loose noose (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment:There are external links. Maybe that could be used as citations?--Boothsift (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • There are three external links. Unfortunately, two of them lack independence from the subject, and the third is simply a description of the game from a website that covers all board games (i.e., WP:ROUTINE coverage, not special coverage, not enough, I don't think, to qualify for notability). If this game were notable, it should be written up in some books or newspapers somewhere. Its mere existence does not by itself make it notable. A loose noose (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge (with appropriate trimming) to Icehouse pieces. This is a major instance of a game played with said pieces, but is only relevant in the context of the prices themselves (which are independently Notable). Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Looney Labs. BOZ (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge per Newimpartial. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

MyUniverse

MyUniverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No independent notability. Just a product of Aditya Birla Group No independent source to demonstrate notability. Should be redirected to Aditya Birla Group. Editor General of Wiki (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 04:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

War Eagle Trail Running Festival

War Eagle Trail Running Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:N. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was covered on 5-News [32]. SpinningSpark 17:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ford O'Connell

Ford O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Vanity page created by SPAs (possible COI) - references are all primary sources or brief mentions. A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything to show meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Radhika Rao (actress)

Radhika Rao (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable actress (when clearly distinguished from the film director, who is another person with the same name). Google search reveals that she exists; we knew that. It also shows a lot of non-independent vanity hits; we expected them. Could not find any independent in-depth coverage. (The coverage that appears to be in-depth coverage of her is actually in-depth coverage of the director, who is someone else.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Anna Ataeva

Anna Ataeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A Russian painter now living in Houston. A general search turned up no RS. The article contains at most one independent source. Other existing article sources are Saatchi online (wiki), gallery pages and bio listings. GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ghost Trucker (band)

Ghost Trucker (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:NBAND. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of musical databases which only report track listings. If there's no consensus to delete, Excelsior Recordings would be the proper redirect/merge target.

Also anyone Googling for sources shouldn't be confused with The Ghost Truckers (a similarly named band from Massachusetts) and "Ghost Trucker netherlands band" is the proper search. —Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment There seem to be at least a few Dutch-language reliable sources like this one, and some less-reliable looking ones like this and this. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is an article discussing the band in De Groene Amsterdammer. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's a Dutch band (probably why I missed the Dutch sources), so I guess there aren't going to be English sources covering it. You could add those to the article and see where this discussion goes from there.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 01:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yongbei Tang

Yongbei Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

She is a political candidate for a local election who has never held political office and despite the local controversy she does not appear to be otherwise notable Grahame (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor, local government, never yet elected politician. Not yet notable. Single event controversy, not isolated, to her. Perhaps as best WP:TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown 1000

WWE SmackDown 1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Nothing notable about this event and nothing notable happened. I see nothing to believe this event was more WP:LASTING than any other episode of SmackDown. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 01:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pilsen Neighbors Community Council

Pilsen Neighbors Community Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this local organization per WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment A Google Scholar search threw up quite a few hits - the ones I clicked on were behind paywalls however, so I wasn't able to establish whether they would count as significant coverage. Have you checked these?GirthSummit (blether) 10:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Maudie Wilson

Maudie Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. Also, in reference to the artilce stating She was succeeded as New Zealand's oldest person by 109-year-old Peg Griffin. "oldest person in country X" is not a position or title with predecessors and successors, it's just random trivia. — JFG talk 00:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is just standard obituary info (born, married, had kids, spouse died, she died, number of offspring). Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL, which is what this article is acting as. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her because she was not notable. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on the List of supercentenarians by continent, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable supercentenarian. Fails WP:GNG, a GRG table that doesn't mention her and three routine obituaries that only tell us the bare life basics (born, got married, had kids, died) does not make someone notable. WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB apply here too. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Marie-Thérèse Bardet

Marie-Thérèse Bardet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 00:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples ages or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, and the remarkable fact that she was born and later died. There is almost nothing said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on two different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list. Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. There is nothing of interest in this article that isn't easily handled on a list. The only information that isn't on a list is that she was born to a single mother and had children and grandchildren. Also fails WP:GNG as sources are either local news articles or obituaries (the GRG link doesn't mention her at all) that only repeat "born, oldest in country/Europe, had kids and grandkids and died". CommanderLinx (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Delphine Gibson

Delphine Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 00:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples ages or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with the standard fluff added in (married, had kids, longevity secret, died). There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Half the article is the fluffy trivia about her predecessor and successor and that someone else was older but living in another country. Other than that, the sources can only tell us she was born, she got married, she had kids and then she died. Nothing of interest that isn't already on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Eugénie Blanchard

Eugénie Blanchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No independent notability established beyond her exceptional longevity. We have tables for this. — JFG talk 00:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. I find it very disappointing that more people are supporting the idea that being notable for longevity alone doesn't mean they get a Wikipedia article. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes: all the information relevant to this person's age (the only notable thing about her) is already included in various lists of oldest people. We can simply redirect her name to List of French supercentenarians. If any biographical trivia is deemed useful, she can have a short section there. — JFG talk 05:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you provide any policy/guideline based reasoning for keeping this article? Because nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say "longevity makes you notable". And the fact that most of these WP:PERMASTUBs cannot be expanded beyond "born, married, had kids, worked, died" means they should be on lists. CommanderLinx (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E because there is only WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how she relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various arbitrary categories, with some fluff about her nickname added in. There is almost nothing actually said about her in an article that is supposed to be about her. Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect. Per nom. The sources strain to pad this article with fluffy trivia (3rd oldest X, oldest Y, successor/predecessor) and there's an entire paragraph about a nickname she had. Other than that the sources and article tell us she was born, became a nun, became oldest in country/world, died. Nothing that isn't easily handled in a list somewhere. Three of the five sources no longer work and the remaining two are both local news articles so fails WP:GNG. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Mansurchak

Mansurchak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No indication of notability and no sources beyond government census documents. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND, legally populated places are notable, this one even has its own census sub-block as a minor "regional center". Does need better sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 17:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Nayatol

Nayatol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No sources in the article beyond Wikivillage, no indication of notability, and a search reveals no sources that could be used to expand the article. Nathan2055talk - contribs 00:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Legally designated populated place per WP:GEOLAND and the Indian census [33], needs cleanup, not deletion. SportingFlyer talk 06:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep GEOLAND. SpinningSpark 16:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Files

Files for discussion

October 21

October 20

File:Seal of California, 1954, Dept of Rehabilitation, Sacramento, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1954, Dept of Rehabilitation, Sacramento, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1950, O.C. Malmquist Panels, California State Capitol, Sacramento.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1950, O.C. Malmquist Panels, California State Capitol, Sacramento.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Employment Development Department, 1955, Sacramento.jpg

File:Seal of California, Employment Development Department, 1955, Sacramento.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, ca. 1960, 1304 O Street, Sacramento, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, ca. 1960, 1304 O Street, Sacramento, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1890, Marshall Monument, Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Coloma, CA.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1890, Marshall Monument, Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park, Coloma, CA.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1898, San Francisco Ferry Building.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1898, San Francisco Ferry Building.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1986, Jacque Giuffre and Rosa Estebanez, CPUC Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1986, Jacque Giuffre and Rosa Estebanez, CPUC Building, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Hearst Building Lobby, 5 Third Street, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, Hearst Building Lobby, 5 Third Street, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1894, F. Happersberger (1859-1932), James Lick Pioneer Monument, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1894, F. Happersberger (1859-1932), James Lick Pioneer Monument, Civic Center, San Francisco, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1998, Elihu Harris State Building, Oakland, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1998, Elihu Harris State Building, Oakland, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1910, San Mateo County History Museum, Redwood City, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1910, San Mateo County History Museum, Redwood City, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1939, Harold F. Wilson, Ronald Reagan State Building, Los Angeles, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1939, Harold F. Wilson, Ronald Reagan State Building, Los Angeles, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, Los Angeles County Law Library, Los Angeles, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, Los Angeles County Law Library, Los Angeles, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Seal of California, 1932, Martin Syvertsen, Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California.jpg

File:Seal of California, 1932, Martin Syvertsen, Bowers Museum, Santa Ana, California.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Blcksx (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Photograph needs a license, which uploader doesn't provide. Magog the Ogre (tc) 22:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Early Detection Saves Lives.jpg

File:Early Detection Saves Lives.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ColdCreeper44 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

License plate design is NOT own work as claimed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:AdamLambertBegforMercy.jpg

File:AdamLambertBegforMercy.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by CJJuarez17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Album cover, How does Itunes have the rights to re-license this as claimed? Did the uploader mean to put 'non-free' use? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:South Africa coat of arms.png

File:South Africa coat of arms.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TheTexasNationalist99 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Deleted twice, soon to be thrice on Commons (c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of South Africa.png) Magog the Ogre (tc) 16:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rich Greenfield.jpg

File:Rich Greenfield.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Noveoko (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image for long deleted article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Greenfield. Magog the Ogre (tc) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Categories

October 21

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Retail companies established in 1670

Nominator's rationale: There is only one company established in 1670 with a WP article. Plus there are no other retail companies established categories prior to 1800. Categorizing just as companies is enough. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Anarchists by occupation

Nominator's rationale: Anarchism is not an occupation/job, so this category misleadingly collects illogical subcategories. For instance, "Anarchist historian" is not a defining breakdown of historian, though it is reasonable to have Category:Historians of anarchism. Likewise, Category:Anarcho-punk musicians is reasonable, as anarcho-punk is a genre with its own article, but Category:Anarchist musicians does not describe any established type of musician. Non-anarcho-punk musicians should instead be grouped by the existing "American musicians" and "American anarchists" cats. Similarly, the other occupation subcats I checked did not diffuse profession by political ideology.
Open to ideas on how best to handle, but to my eyes, the only subcategory worth preserving is "Anarcho-punk musicians" (which can sit under "Anarchists") as the only occupation with an established connection to the identity. czar 12:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sri Lanka women cricket captains

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep per DENY. NPASR if an editor in good standing agrees with nomination rationale. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Nationality should replace country as for similar categories and the name of the sport is women's cricket, not women cricket. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Category:South Africa women's national cricket team captains

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep per DENY. NPASR if an editor in good standing agrees with nomination rationale. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Nationality should be used, not country, as is the case for similar categories. Equally, as these categories hold articles about domestic team captains, it is incorrect to use national team in the title. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Category:Women cricket captains

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep per DENY. No prejudice against renomination if someone else finds that this is a valid nomination Primefac (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The sport is known as women's cricket and omission of the apostrophe is grammatically incorrect. The context of any article is captain of a women's cricket team. It is wrong to suggest that the category is about women who are cricket captains because that might lead into mixed cricket and so be irrelevant here. Women's cricket is an independent sport. Bundle is now complete. Thanks. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Category:Basshunter singles covers

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for cover art for singles and has been a long-established precedent that all cover art files for a music artist, whether for albums or singles, go into an album covers category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
No point to keep them separetly same as categories for articles and it's missleading because singles are not albums. Eurohunter (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Observances set by the Ethiopian calendar

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this calendar is exclusively tied to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, categorizing these festivals by calendar and by church is mere duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Observances set by the Coptic calendar

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the calendar is exclusively tied to the Coptic Orthodox Church, categorizing these festivals by calendar and by the church is mere duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Observances set by the Hebrew calendar

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the calendar is fully tied to the Jewish ethnicity, categorizing these observances by calendar and ethnicity is mere duplication. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)



Redirects

October 21

Australindian

Delete. No such word is used to refer to indigenous Australians. Paul Carter (academic) coined this word to refer to the colonial empire of the Indian Ocean, or the landmasses of the Indo-Australian plate. DrKay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete This is definitely nothing to do with Aboriginal Australians. It doesn't even make sense in that context. Gnangarra can probably confirm this. --AussieLegend () 15:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Bretish

No such word. DrKay (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

1993 ISAF Sailing World Championships

Delete. No such event. The link in the one article that linked to it turned out to be an error for the redlinked 1993 event in Windsurfing World Championships. Narky Blert (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

William walles

Implausible redirect to William Wallace as it isn't a misspelling at all. Only 23 pageviews since January 2018 and I don't see any reason keeping this redirect at all. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Vulgar language

The redirect should point to the Profanity article, per WP:Primary topic and WP:Principle of least astonishment. "Vulgar language" commonly refers to profanity. Readers are not expecting to be taken to the Vernacular article when clicking on or typing in "vulgar language." Rcsprinter123 created the redirect in 2012. The redirect continued to point to the Profanity article until this IP showed up and changed it in 2017. There has recently been edit warring at the redirect page. I've brought the matter here for discussion and so that the edit warring stops. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

As another option, the redirect could point to Vulgarity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Note I've corrected the nomination template. @Flyer22 Reborn: for future reference, when nominating a redirect for retargetting the "target" parameter in the template is for the current target not the proposed one. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thryduulf, yes, I know. It was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity per the nomination. A hatnote can be added to Vernacular if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity as per Thryduulf & nom - Vernacular does mention the word "vulgar" but agreed profanity seems a better target. –Davey2010Talk 23:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to profanity per above Raymond1922 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong keep the redirect to Vernacular, or redirect to Vulgarity. Profane is religion related, whereas vulgar and vernacular are not—check the terms' origins and etymology.
Note: I reverted the redirect when checking the edits of (now indef blocked) user Brandon5015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who seemed obsessed with making bad edits to just about all our articles in the field of "bad words". Two days before my revert I had put a final warning [34] on their talk for this little gem. So this was just a revert of another bad edit, which in turn was a revert of this good edit. Recently another incarnation of same blocked user came along: 75.170.21.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also blocked for redirecting dozens of articles to Profanity.- DVdm (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Per above, regardless of any past disruptive editing by Brandon5015, Brandon5015 is correct that redirecting the term to the Profanity article is a far better choice than redirecting it to the Vernacular article. His edit was not a bad edit in this case. In fact, it was a restoration of the WP:Status quo. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Per the dictionaries, and per some comment below, Brandon5015 is not correct, and WP:Status quo suggests we keep the situation that was in place between 28 September 2017 and 4 August 2018, almost a year. - DVdm (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how the dictionaries support having this term redirect to the Vernacular article. And that's not how WP:Primary topic works anyway. Only you and one other editor thus far have supported the term redirecting to the Vernacular article. Well, unless DGG below was saying that the page should be a disambiguation page rather than creating a separate disambiguation page for it or adding some hatnote at the top of the Vernacular article about it. All others have agreed with me that the term should redirect to either the Profanity article or the Vulgarity article. And since the IP changed a significantly longer-standing redirect destination and I would have reverted the IP had I seen it (the redirect has been on my watchlist for years, but I missed that change), I do not consider the IP change to be the status quo. Furthermore, it's not like that page has a lot of watchers. It likely only has a few, and you and I are two of those few watchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Checked yesterday, and only nine editors thus far watch the redirect. have edited the article. It was eight yesterday. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Checked today: Polling is not a substitute for discussion Face-smile.svg - DVdm (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And where did I state or imply that it is? Nowhere that I can see. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
On a side note, though: Polling is clearly suited for discussions such as this one. The supplement page you pointed to is clear that polls are used to help determine consensus, as is happening in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. and change to a disam note: the term has both meanings. The traditional meaning is indeed "vernacular", the use from antiquity through the 19th century--its use to mean profanity is a description and use from about the 16th century to the present (in the 18th and 19th century it could mean either) , DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, this is about WP:Primary topic -- about what readers are most likely to be expecting when they click on or type in "vulgar language." Surely, they are most likely expecting what is stated at the Profanity or Vulgarity article, not what is seen at the Vernacular article. As we know, words evolve. A traditional meaning is not the same thing as what is usually meant by a term today. We don't, for example, have Gay as a disambiguation page or two articles for the term simply because the original meaning did not refer to homosexuality. Yes, we do gave Gay (disambiguation), but we also have "Gay" for the primary meaning of the term and how it evolved. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
there is no primary topic. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
DGG, I and others clearly disagree with you on that. I see no valid reason to have "vulgar language" redirect to a disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to vulgarity because WP:ASTONISH — that article actually explains the term. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to vulgarity per User:DVdm's rationale. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Profanity as it originally was.[35] Accesscrawl (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget. The use of the phrase "vulgar language" to refer to vernaculars is now outdated, but it was historically by far the most common, and I can imagine even now it's probably more likely to be the one encountered in contexts in which readers are likely to follow it up on wikipedia. Now, the contemporary meaning is rather broad (and hence more typical of a dictionary than an encyclopedia) and it's covered at Vulgarity#Language (Profanity, already linked there, is only one possible aspect of it). Given that we favour specific encyclopedic topics over lexical meanings, it would seem at least weakly preferrable to keep the current target; however, that would necessitate the addition of a hatnote, and I really don't like the idea of the article on vernaculars to start with "Vulgar language" redirects here. I think I would go for disambiguation as the lesser of two evils. A draft is available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; we shouldn't follow a new meaning over an established and continuing-to-be-used meaning, especially in this case where the proposed alternate topic is outright wrong: as noted above, vulgarities are distinct from profanity, since rarely or never do they denigrate the holy. Nyttend (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar disambiguation, as somehow Profanity is also listed there as vulgar language (recent edit?) so three possible targets. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 18:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language. This is a slight modification of the AngusWOOF proposal. This is as specific as it can be while minimizing surprise. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language per Mr. Guye. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Vulgar#Language, which covers all the bases. I don't think the current target is quite right (historical meanings should be taken into account but shouldn't be given precedence over modern usage), but nor is profanity – vulgar language surely encompasses all sorts of words and phrases that don't quite rise to the level of the profane, in either its religious or secular sense. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not confident we can reach consensus here, as the discussion favored profanity, vulgarity, and vulgar. That being said, there does seem to be consensus to change the target, and given that the three popular options went largely in sequence, perhaps some more discussion might change some folks' minds. Worth a shot
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 11:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it should be turned into a DAB, since vulgar language can refer to both Profanity and Vulgarity#Language. Therefore, I think it should a DAB that links to both pages.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 13:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

T:ITV

Cross namespace redirect, per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_112#RFC:_On_the_controversy_of_the_pseudo-namespace_shortcuts: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases.

Especially confusing as {{ITV}} is a separate template; this redirect is used less than 10 times Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - The fact that Template:ITV, which is used on 114 pages, exists is the exact reason that a shortcut could not be created there. {{Infobox television}} is used in 45,241 articles so having a shortcut is quite reasonable. Perhaps {{ITV}} should be moved to {{ITV television}} --AussieLegend () 17:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with Galobtter. In addition, this redirect it not used in any article so will not cause any issue. --Gonnym (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It's meant to be a keyboard shortcut. It doesn't have to be used in articles, nor would one expect it to be. --AussieLegend () 20:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand, my point being that removing it won't cause an issue which would need bots to deal with. --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying you'd rather inconvenience actual people rather than annoying a bot? --AussieLegend () 15:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, this "shortcut" is not particularly convenient to use in the first place (see below), but it's also in the article namespace: it shows up in searches and so potentially inconveniences readers. – Uanfala (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It is very convenient to use as a keyboard shortcut compared to typing in the whole name of the template. --AussieLegend () 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per AussieLegend. A shortcut is not unreasonable, and it's unlikely to be confused with any encyclopaedia topic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep saves time as AussieLegend besides the moving part. What harm does it do anyways? – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 01:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. First off, this is not a template shortcut. If anyone tried to trasclude that in the usual way, they will only get a red link like this: Template:T:ITV. This is because a transclusion expects the thing transcluded to be in the template namespace and this "shortcut" is not in the template namespace. If this were to be used, the article namespace will have to be specified with an additional colon: {{:T:ITV}}, and this is highly inintuitive. Second, as pointed out by the nom, there's consensus against the creation of redirects from the article namespace into the template namespace. We do have an a few dozen similar redirects mostly inherited from the older days (see Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace) but they really only make sense for templates that function more as project pages, and hence are there to be linked to, not transcluded, which is not the case here. Third, even if this were in the right namespace, it wouldn't really be a felicitious shortcut, as it looks much better suited to be a shortcut for {{ITV}} rather than {{Infobox television}}. Fourth, infobox templates are used only once in an article so there's little need to make their aliases cryptically short, and given that they're used in a prominent position at the top of the article, there are good reasons for having them as explicit as possible: {{Infobox TV}} is probably the shortest shortcut we should have. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. It's NOT supposed to be transcluded. There's absolutely no reason why anyone would want to do that. As far as {{ITV}} goes, that's a very ambiguous name and should probably be moved. You seem to be missing the point that this is supposed to be a keyboard shortcut; it's a lot easier to type "T:ITV" (5 characters) than "Template:Infobox television" (27 characters). --AussieLegend () 12:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What is its intended use then? Is it only for linking? – Uanfala (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
As I explained above, it's a keyboard shortcut. Its primary use is to avoid having to type 27 characters when going to the template page, something that has to be done almost every day, mainly to confirm parameters after editors do things like this. Put Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters on your watchlist and you'll see what I mean. --AussieLegend () 12:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
So it's used for linking. In that case, you can ignore points #1 and #4 of my comment, but #2 and #3 still stand. Again, it is easy to confuse with {{ITV}} (regardless of what that other template's name really ought to be). And, more importantly, such pseudonamespace redirects are legacy material, they should be avoided whenever possible, and their use generally makes sense only in cases where it's very common to link to a given template (as for example for T:DYK). This shortcut has only about half a dozen talk page links, despite having being listed, inappropriately, as a shortcut at Template:Infobox television for two years – that's nowhere near enough to outweigh the disadvantages. This infobox doesn't seem to have any more need of such pseudoshortcuts than the average template. And there are generic ways for editors to save time typing its name (like {{ltb|Infobox TV}}) that don't involve the creation of shortcuts that pollute the article namespace. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Uanfala: no, it isn't used for linking - you've completely misunderstood AussieLegend's comment. This is used as a keyboard shortcut, to aid editors maintaining the template. Your characterisation of peseudonamespace redirects (PNRs) as "legacy material [that] should be avoided whenever possible" is incorrect - new PNRs are discouraged unless there is a good reason for them - linking is just one example of what might be a good reason but ease of access to the template page (as explained by Aussielegend) is another (c.f. T:AC / T:ACOT). Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
So that's what they're used for! Sorry, my bad! If I hadn't misunderstood the point of the redirect, I would have spared you all the long rationale, and my comment would have been briefer: "Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." Needlesss to say, people are completely free to avail themselves of the standard features on their web browsers (or whatever software they use to edit here). – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"Delete because the article namespace is not where editors are supposed to keep bookmarks of their favourite templates." That's not relevant because it's nobody's favourite shortcut. It's a shortcut for anyone to use, as explained. Personlly, I'd rather not have to use it at all but when you have so many people making silly changes to infoboxes over and over again because they don't bother reading the instructions, it's a necessary evil. --AussieLegend () 14:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 29#T: where "T:" redirects as a class gained overwhelming consensus. The arguments explain the difference between linking and navigation - that the two are different is why T:ITV and {{ITV}} leading to different places is not at all problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This was from 2010, and the current consensus on the issue is from the RfC of three years later: There is consensus that new "pseudo-namespace" redirects ("MOS:", "T:", etc) should be strongly discouraged if not prohibited in all but exceptional cases. The redirect we're discussing was created two years after the RfC, and so shouldn't have been created in the first place. – Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's confusing and/or misleading for T:ITV and {{ITV}} to go to different places, per precedents such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#T:N. -- Tavix (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't call that a strong precedent (not that we are actually bound by precedent) - one person mentioned it as one of multiple reasons to delete, someone else endorsed all the reasons to delete and that was it. Nobody else even considered it. I'm not seeing any evidence here that anybody has ever actually been confused by T:ITV not redirecting to Template:ITV. Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 10:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hp

The current system is confusing as people are redirected to the Horsepower page when looking for HP Inc. or other pages at HP. It especially confusing for users because Horsepower is commonly written as HP (uppercase) and HP Inc. writes hp (lowercase) on their computers as their logo. And many links currently on HP are lowercase. – BrandonXLF ([email protected]) 01:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Note previous discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 1#hpwbm1058 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab page per nominator after fixing the incoming links. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hp doesn't currently have any incoming links from articles. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Uanfala: That's because I disambiguated ~50 links. The vast majority were for horsepower, of course, but this exercise should be done periodically to fix stuff like THIS and THIS. wbm1058 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to HP per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Retarget to disambiguation. There are times when upper- and lower-case should point to different articles, but I would argue against there being a primary use for either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Do not retarget to HP: this is a long dab page and almost all of the entries there seem to be abbreviated using upper-case letters: if a reader is trying to get to one of the three or four lower-case ones, they would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I've had a look at the incoming article links to hp – I don't see any direct ones, but the ones that use piping are of two types:
    • [[....|hp]]: about 845 such links, in only four of them is the target different from horsepower (one link each for hp-FEM, Hewlett-Packard, HP and hit points).
    • [[...|Hp]] : 96 instances, most of which are infobox fields of the form [[Railway station types in Germany|Hp]]
      All this shows that at most one out of ten links to hp are for something other than horsepower. As far as linking go, this is a very clear indication of a primary topic, and that appears to have been the consensus in various discussions (Wbm1058 has already linked to the previous RfD, and to that I can add two more discussions). So far, this favours the status quo (a primary redirect, and a hatnote at the target pointing to the dab page). However, it's possible that the actual usage by readers might not be aligned with the topic structure. If a challenge to the primary topic is to be mounted, I guess the way to do it is to turn the redirect into a dab page (listing only the lower-case entries) and then seeing what proportion of readers click on each. – Uanfala (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. The lengthy edit history, now with over 80 revisions, does belie the idea that horsepower is the clear primary topic here. There's been a lot of back and forth since the first May 2004 attempt to retarget this. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the amount of input at the previous RfD, I think a little more discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 10:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Interstate 464 (Kentucky)

There is no information about I-464 on the New Circle Road article. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Pioneer(daily)

Delete there already exists a redirect with the proper spacing, so this typo redirect is unnecessary --- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, {{R from move}}, harmless, unambiguous and very well used (582 hits this year, 789 last year). Deletion will not bring any benefits here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Templates

October 21

Template:PortalCH

Not needed; one can use {{portal}} or {{portal-inline}} directly for a left-aligned portal box. Frietjes (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Miscellany

Deletion review

21 October 2018

Katarrama

Katarrama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think Katarrama deserve a place in Wikipedia. You can find them on Spotify, Grooveshark, Deezer, iTunes, Youtube, Amazon Music.... They have 3 studio albums and played for 20 years around Spain and Ireland and they appear on compilation albums. They contributed to bring the Catalonia conflict against Spain to light and promoting catalan language in rock music. 83.59.133.253 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Endorse and suggest speedy close. The AfD was not well attended, but well enough, and unanimous, and citing good policy reasons. This DRV nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. Please read WP:MUSIC to learn about what we need in the way of sources for a band. If you want to try writing a new article, it can be done in draft space, and with attention to finding good sources which establish that WP:MUSIC has been met. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:XfD_today&oldid=805794331"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:XfD_today
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:XfD today"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA