Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Spencer[edit]

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

The article says it all, he had extra roles, camoe roles, and then finally moved on to uncredited roles. The sources are not reliable and the roles do not add up to passing notability for actors and a search for more sources came up with nothing. Not every person who had credited roles in films is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR; see WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "notable uncredited roles" is an oxymoron. No sign that WP:ENT or WP:GNG are met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Waine[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. I was unable to find third-party sources other than routine coverage, passing mentions of his name in articles covering other topics, and his biographical information on webpages of organizations he has worked for (hired or elected). Paisarepa (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Paisarepa (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a local school board member is not notable, not anywhere. Wikipedia has lots of articles on other non-notable people, but that is no justification for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing that he qualifies for a Wikipedia article, but the sources are not getting him over WP:GNG — this is not referenced to reliable source coverage that is substantively about him, but to a giant cluster reference bomb of primary source profiles and glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. You can WP:REFBOMB as much as you want, but at the end of the day you can't will someone to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think a local school board member is not notable and fail passes WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimity that this water park fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splash Island (Biñan)[edit]

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

insufficient reliable sources for this water park--travel guides only. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not even a second-tier tourist site in the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be an A7 to me - no real claim of why it's significant (I don't think 6,000 visitors qualifies as a credible claim of significance for a waterpark). Red Phoenix ^talk 20:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Isabirye[edit]

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

Zero independent sources about the subject of this biography. Peacock (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable Ceethekreator (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Alex-h (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to prove this person exists. It's a pseudonym for all we know. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Belliard[edit]

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

inadequate theird party sources for notability of this personal trainer/ fitness model. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and inadequate sourcing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- a CV of an Instagram personality with no independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Amy Grant discography. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Best Christmas[edit]

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

Christmas compilation album that didn’t chart and has not achieved any notable coverage, nor has any coverage been added in 12 years. Safe to say it never will and this non-notable album should be deleted or redirected to Amy Grant discography Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any coverage upon further examination. I could understand a possible redirect as it could be a possible search term, but the complete lack of concrete coverage leads me more to a delete vote instead. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Grant discography. I think it might be a viable search term for Amy Grant fans so redirecting could be useful. But the album itself was a budget compilation that received no notice and made no impact when it was released. The only sources found are the typical retail/streaming directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galaga X6[edit]

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

Page fails to meet notability guidelines. The only source present doesn't look to be reliable. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Galaga, as the name rings very familiar.~~ the game is an offshoot of Galaga as this and the original are spaceship shooters. Nower603 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - No coverage whatsoever from any reliable sources to establish notability (a Google search on it only yielded shopping listings). --letcreate123 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to not having enough reliable sources and significant coverage. Blake44 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation explosion[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable event. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event had no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend and WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure what caused the explosion, but there is a List of pipeline accidents in the United States in 2019 where mention of this could potentially be made. StonyBrook (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is not encyclopedic Alex-h (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Artist[edit]

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

Promotional. References are not independent of the online art school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Interested editors may want to check the related page, Old Holland for promotion as well. Evolve isn't notable, but Old Holland likely is. They make nice paint, but the article reads like it's been written by their marketing department. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References not independent of the online art school are not longer present. Ptt1234 12:47, 12 July 2019 (PT)

Delete Despite recent edits, Vex's points remain valid. This company has no significant coverage of independent, reliable sources.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT (both those provided and the search online I conducted). --CNMall41 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Long[edit]

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of nn videos. Survived AFD a decade ago based on porn industry awards, which are no longer alone sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's assessment is correct. In addition, my own independent searches for RS coverage came up empty. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacking significant coverage in actual independent reliable sources. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The subject should be rewritten, but there is a clear consensus to keep this article. Nower603 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry[edit]

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

Copied from a public-domain source. Clearly not an encyclopedia article in its current form (WP:DEL14) - there are details of recruitment but no claims of importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the deletion proposal, but want to note there's probably a way to build an article around this topic. Read as a "don't keep in current form." SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Keep article has been much improved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On reading through the article I can't see anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Of course it should have a lead section and internal links and otherwise have stylistic changes made to it, but I really can't see any reason why those improvements can't be made without deleting this, and why the current article doesn't serve readers better than nothing, which is what we would have if this was deleted. WP:MILUNIT suggests that we usually have articles about regiments. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If someone could format this, copy edit this, and add a couple additional sources, we'd have an article. Maybe draftify? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree with this "if in doubt, draftify" idea that seems to have taken hold here. If we draftify it then nobody will see it and improve it, and it will be deleted under WP:G13 in six months. Now that the article is at AfD we should take a decision now, rather than just kick it down the road. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don´t you think you´re a little overzealous with your copyright-paranoia? The article has been created just yesterday, give the creator some time to work. Seriously. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable regiment per WP:MILUNIT with substantial combat service. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Singapore[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL - it's impossible to state with any degree of certainty that these events will occur in 2022. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and perhaps WP:OR given the distance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it's possible to have a "2022 in X" article if there's a range of notable scheduled events, but none of the routine infrastructure development notices in the article seem to me to justify its existence. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close . This AfD is a duplicate and a misspelling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PolicyGenius. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyGenius[edit]

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

The references do not substantiate that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The article's content would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

The author has admitted conflict of interest (he is employed by the company as a media marketer). At best the page is blatant corporate advertising to gain SEO.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimity that the subject fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco D'Macho[edit]

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of NN videos and a pair of award citations that wouldn't even have satisfied the last version of PORNBIO. Also a licensing violation, since the base version of the text was an improper cut-and-paste userfication that didn't preserve the history of the originally deleted article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks significant coverage in truly independent reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Skylab[edit]

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

Non-notable film, sources don't indicate notability (non-professional review and advert for opening) BOVINEBOY2008 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this 2019 documentary is a notable addition to the space documentary collection, is even now well sourced per its topic, seems to have had a NASA and astronaut involved opening, and is now one of 28 films listed at Category:Documentary films about the space program of the United States. Skylab is one of the major NASA programs of the 1970s, and to finally have a full documentary on this program of course fits within encyclopedic notability standards. Why not just put a citesneeded tag on it rather than go for a full deletion? I really dislike coming to these deletion discussions for things which are obvious notable keepers and just need a source or three. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a worst-case outcome would be a merge to Skylab#Documentaries, where it is already mentioned. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the request to the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should a "non-professional" review be excluded? When did policy change WP:RS like this? Also, el Reg is professional journalism, even if not usually reviewing films. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As a film, it needs to be review by professional reviews to be considered notable, per WP:NF guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a guideline, not a hard rule. There are plenty of completely un-notable films which have been professionally reviewed, and plenty of notable documentaries which didn't get a professional review in the first three months after their release. And, for all I know, it has been professionally reviewed. You're talking about a lack of a reference to such a review, not the non-existence of such a review. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where (even in WP:NF) does it require reviews to be professional in order to convey notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFO: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" widely distributed"

So if it's not Disney, it's not notable? There's a whole world of specialist cinema, arthouse for one, almost any documentary for another (this is a documentary) which will never achieve the distribution of Toy Story, but are certainly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's sufficiently notable. If it isn't, there are a whole lot of article on less notable films which ought to go. I'm moderately annoyed that the director himself has made some edits, but they seem to be innocuous. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I expanded the article with what sources I could find using a search engine, however there isn't much. Some of these sources were not independent (i.e. a primary source from a museum which screened a preview and a review/summary from the NSS which happened to have been written by the film's technical advisor). While I would like to see more and better sources, at the very least a review/summary from Space.com, a Future plc holding which specializes in spaceflight news and is frequently syndicated by major networks, seems to show reliable and independent coverage as outlined in the wp:GNG.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep I've read and searched about this and I think it can do better in future, the sources are not that strong but good. It should be considered that the subject is very specific so for that the sources are good. As this is new a new documentary in future it can bring more sources and coverage, hopefully, Best. - Blake44 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and well sourced. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to John A. Stormer. Clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None Dare Call It Treason[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTQUOTE. Whilst this phrase is used very widely, there is no evidence at all that the phrase is notable in and of itself given on the page, nor did any show up in my WP:BEFORE, so it also fails WP:GNG. Recommend redirect to John Harington (writer). FOARP (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral about deletion, but this article is not a disambiguation page. If it survives AfD it should have the disambiguation tag removed, and an appropriate category applied. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a redirect, you should have just done it. It would have taken 2 fewer edits than an AFD nomination. Redirects do not involve the administrator deletion tool in any way, and any editor, even ones without accounts, can enact them. And Talk:None Dare Call It Treason, and possibly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, is for the inevitable subsequent hashing out of which of the now two targets should be the redirect. AFD is for deletion as the name says. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer, since "none dare call it treason" is not covered on John Harington (writer) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until somebody either writes an article on the very notable book, which this page could be merged into, or until this page is expanded into an article on that book, with this tect used in a section on the title and its source/origin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists this has been a low traffic AfD. Small majority for the 'keep's but their arguments are balanced by the other reservations. I am not seeing a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Dialogue and ADR for Feature Film[edit]

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

This is not notable as a standalone award and I would propose redirecting it to Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors#Golden_Reel_Awards which is what the entry on the DAB redirects to as well as the awards are not actually independently notable, however the creator has contested this so i'm left with AFD.

So, delete and redirect. I'm also bundling Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film with it.Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories rather than just one, keeping all of the information about every category in a single merged article about the overall program would make that article far too long to be useful. So standard practice for multi-category film, television, music or literary awards programs has always been that as long as the overall program is notable, each category should have its own standalone article regardless of any quibbles about whether that individual category is "independently" notable separately from the overall program, simply because that's the user-friendliest way to package the overall program. Try, for example, to imagine if none of the Academy Award categories had their own standalone articles, but instead all of the winners and nominees in every category were simply crammed into one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong omnibus article about the Academy Awards themselves: this would not be user-friendly or helpful to either readers or editors, so we split the information up for size management purposes, regardless of what anybody thinks about the standalone notability of any individual category. It's true that not every award category presented by the Motion Picture Sound Editors actually has its own standalone article yet, but that's precisely because getting them started is a new project being taken on by an editor within the past two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I have an issue with 51 (fast count) out of 88 references, being IMDb that is user-generated and considered questionable sources. Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film has 5 references that are all IMDb. Surely we can do better so I hope there are plans to address with "the new editor" because if not there are all-around notability issues. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If publications like the Los Angeles Times and Variety announce the results, the awards are notable enough. The quality of some of the sources is not a valid reason to delete the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements alone are not coverage. We do not need an article for every category and subcat when we don't even have an actual article on the awards and even if we did, it's not a directory. There is no sustained coverage of this. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Low traffic AfD. No sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Hocevar[edit]

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

Only sources cited are press releases and routine stats directory-esqe pages, leaving a total absence of WP:RS. Races part-time in a series that does not satisfy WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – actually he does satisfy WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 1: Has driven at least 1 race in a fully professional series. Hocevar has raced in ARCA Menards Series which according to the article is a professional series. SSSB (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article it is, but the longstanding viewpoint of WikiProject NASCAR is that ARCA is not fully professional for a series that satisfies #1. If you would like to reevaluate that viewpoint, I would be open to starting a discussion at the WikiProject. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its a long standing viewpoint I'll support delete below. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the response to my comment (above), if this series isn't considered proffesional by the relevent WikiProject then he fails the notabillity criteria. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cookham Reach Sailing Club[edit]

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

The article is promotional and reads like an advertisement. As for sourcing, it is mostly Cookham itself. News searches find local articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The only reference is the subject's website, and the article does not read like an encyclopedic entry. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I read other Wiki entries for sailing clubs before creating this page and structured it in the same way, providing the same sort of information. When the article is about a club it is hard not to write an article about the club without including "advertising" information, because that is the nature of the organisation - information about it provides detail about what it does. Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ship_Club. If you believe I need to change the content format, please can you suggest what I change? I will add more external references to the club as suggested. ...James

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether or not the article has promotional issues, the club itself does not appear to be notable. Of the sources present in the article already, the first five are unusable to establish notability - they're either from the club's own website, or simply directory entries for locations and/or events. The sixth one is more substantial, but does not actually talk about the club itself at all - it is entirely about an event that took place there. I did some searches for more sources, and was unable to find anything substantial. The few results that come up are either just passing mentions, from extremely local sources, or, most often, a combination of both. Based on these results, this club does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rorshacma. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visible balance[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. It also came to AfD where the consensus was to delete. Apparently that didn’t happen. It’s still here, still unsourced, and it’s no clearer than before who Cedric Vute is. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is quite notable. For example, here's the equivalent article on Britannica. Insofar as we have neglected oddities like "cedric vute", this demonstrates the futility of sticking tags on articles rather than doing the real work of actually improving them. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that there will be much to write about the topic. It's an important concept but WP:NOPAGE might be applicable. ∯WBG^converse 09:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the bare concept is already covered in Balance of payments. Mccapra (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the Balance of payments page has "too long" cleanup tag on it for years. It's 76K and so is too big per WP:SIZE and WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I don’t think that is relevant as I’m not proposing to add any material to that article. It isn’t feasible to remove the brief reference to visible balance of trade in the balance of trade article; my sense is that the brief coverage of the concept of ‘visible balance’ in that article is sufficient and that the article we’re discussing here is redundant. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 'balance of trade' article is somewhat misleading, the ARS might get round to correcting it later, if no one else does. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important topic, best covered in its own article as explained by the Colonel. Also, the nom is somewhat inaccurate. The article was sadly deleted following the 2005 AfD, it was then recreated a few months after. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was repurpose article to Antique Wireless Association. Consensus here exists to keep an article on the association, but that the journal itself is not notable enough for a standalone article. I have moved the page over the redirect to Antique Wireless Association, the content will need to be updated to reflect the new location. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 06:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Antique Wireless Association Review[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODed with reason "Numerous incoming wiklinks indicate deletion may be disruptive or controversial". No independent sources identified, number of incoming links has absolutely no bearing on notability, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the incoming wikilinks indicates that the AWA Review is an important source for those researching and recounting the early history of radio and telegraph communications. I am not aware of any other journal that is devoted to this subject. FLAHAM (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I noted above, number of wikilinks is irrelevant here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is currently no separate page for the Antique Wireless Association (so I'll create a redirect). That society and its journal seem to be regularly cited in histories of radio and other related works. WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 therefore applies. Andrew D. (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any evidence of this getting more than a smattering of citations, which is to be expected and doesn't suffice to meeting JOURNALCRIT#2. --Randykitty (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion as no exact number specified. I remain satisfied that WP:JOURNALCRIT #C2 is passed. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To pass a single academic, we usually require several articles with 100 or more citations. Surely a whole journal should meet at least the bar that we set for single academics. There is no exact number specified, as this depends on the field. History is a low-citation density field (but technology is a high-density field), so we'd be happy with fewer citation than we'd require from, say, a candcer journal. Still, the citation rates that I see in GScholar for this particular jouranl are dismal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ideal case would be having an article on the association and merging there however. But this fails WP:NJOURNALS. Agree with RK that if you wouldn't be notable as a scholar for having being cited X times, then you're not notable as a journal for having been cited X times. I mean, you have book literally called History of Wireless that cites it exactly once. Of all places, if this journal was notable, it'd have been cited them a lot more than once in 577 pages. On google scholar, only 15 papers from the AWA review have been ever been cited. The citation counts are 36, 30, 15, 10, 9, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1. That's an h-index of 5. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. I expect the association does a little more than produce a journal. These specialist societies exist and it is useful to have articles on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Small non-promo stub has value. Slash the external links if you think there's SEO intent, but it deserves a place. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not the strongest of arguments in a discussion like this... --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as an article on Antique Wireless Association, leaving a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post Graduate Government College – 11, Chandigarh[edit]

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

No evidence provided of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. University-level institutions are usually considered notable. See WP:NCOLLEGE Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just by nature of being a University I think it meets GNG, but it fails WP:PROMO, unless someone wants to re-write it. They lost me at "always been envisaged as a leading educational institution having its own distinct impress." def not neutral tone. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Panjab University. Deleting information about a constituent college of a major university is always a poor idea. The question is whether there is enough information to justify a standalone page or whether to incorporate the material in the parent university page. In this case a merge would not look out of place in the target and is the best practical solution. Just Chilling (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Degree-awarding institution. As I have explained many times, Indian colleges affiliated to a university are not part of that university or constituents of that university. They are independent institutions affiliated to that university, which is an entirely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had to go have a read of Higher education in India, but Necrothesp is correct, and I think notability is met. Doesn't appear to be wildly promo. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as independent higher education institution. No reason to think WP:ORG cannot be met. Just Chilling (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Created in violation of a block, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. ST47 (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passivdom[edit]

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

Article is unambiguous spam. Can't be nominated for speedy deletion because it already has been in the past. Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I fixed it. Size now = notability and promo is gone. I say keep the pretty logo but I won't cry if you delete that too, I admit its not notably enough to support it and probably violates WP:Copyright. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Comments by blocked user removed by Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 12:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user above removed all but the intro to the article and the infobox, which I undid. If the edit would help make the article worth keeping, I will go ahead and undo my edit. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as paid-for spam, previously deleted as PassivDom. MER-C 11:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hayley Orrantia. Consensus is that a standalone article is not justified but that the content should be kept in some form. Just Chilling (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out (EP)[edit]

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

No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well written stub about an album written by an unquestionably notable artist. Can't knock the snot panda. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked indefinitely for socking. Richard3120 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well-written - it has just three sentences of basic information and no assertion of notability, the only sources are online record stores, you haven't provided any evidence that it passes WP:NSONG, and the fact the artist is notable does not mean the song is automatically notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After improving and adding to the article with secondary sources I think it is notable but still needs some improvement. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billiekhalidfan: the only secondary source is the one from Broadway World. Three tweets from Ms. Orrantia's own Twitter account and two links to online record stores do not qualify as WP:RS, nor do they show how the song passes WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (for now.) The re-write cited above has not improved it. And "Broadway World" is not a good secondary source. It is a user submitted site for registered members, per [1] Other sources are press releases and social media. The only thing that might be decent is "Pop Matters," but it is only one. If more are added later then it could merit a stand alone article. But as of now the proper place for this is within the artist's own wikipedia page. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: you meant Popculture rather than PopMatters, right? Richard3120 (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. A simple brain fade. Thank you for the correction. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hayley Orrantia. Her recording career is only sparsely covered in that article, and a brief summary of this release there is probably all that is justified. I did find a Billboard article about the lead song from ([2]), but there doesn't appear to be much coverage around of this release itself. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hayley Orrantia. The EP fails WP:NALBUM, and after some searching I haven't found any more reliable sources than Michig has. The singer is obviously notable, but it's unlikely that anything better will turn up regarding sources for this EP. Richard3120 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split on notability. Despite two relists consensus has not formed. Just Chilling (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of an Unborn Child[edit]

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

Both of the current sources are deadlinks, but when looked up on Wayback Machine were clearly not reliable sources in the first place: one's a blog and the other's a wiki, both self-published sources: here's one and here's the other. I've looked for reliable sources to support this and can, indeed, easily find what is claimed in the article to be the original publication. But that's a PRIMARY source and isn't acceptable, alone, to support the article (and doesn't prove, of course, that it's the original publication). (If I can throw in a bit of original research, I have some doubt about that being the original publication because I seem to recall listening to a vinyl record album of this article being read out loud (not the song) long before 1980, perhaps as early as the late 1960's (but I'm old and my memory may have slipped a cog).) TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an interesting story. An anonymous underground work that went the equivalent of "viral" in the 1980s among the pro-life movement. There is evidence that the item was often discussed within that movement, and also ironically within the pro-choice movement, but these were almost certainly internal discussions that did not make the leap into the mainstream media where reliable and significant coverage could be achieved. The same is true of the song that used the tract. It's the equivalent of something going viral in the blogosphere today, with lots of bloggers throwing it at other bloggers while nobody in the outside world notices. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -, given the time period, the best way to look for reliable sources would a large academic library; these sources probably aren't online; the nominator did not specify looking for offline sources. Also interesting as Coffeeluvr613 stated.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added five refs recovered from archives, hidden comments, and the talk page. One of them is from 1973 by Michele DuVal Aiello, another in from of a graphic novel from 1978 by Jack Thomas Chick. As odd as it is, this is too interesting as a track record of a story to be deleted. Also, given the long history of "usage example" over so many decades indicates some encyclopedic relevance per WP:N. I think, with some research it should be possible to put the fragments together into one coherent story, but that's normal article improvement, not AfD, see also WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The added "refs" are either just republications in various forms of the story or a copyright listing at the copyright office which has unsourced original research added to describe it and which is not itself substantiated by the source. Once again they're PRIMARY sources which are not alone sufficient to support the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Unless you assume bad faith in me or the editor who added that information in the first place the source does provide what is stated in the comment. We can ask the copyright office for confirmation of the facts. They have a copy of the work filed in an archive. Sources don't have to be online to be useful in an article.

Also, at present, that entry is not used to prove anything in the article - it is just a "further reading" which might be helpful to put the pieces of history together in the future.

You are right about primary sources, but primary sources are perfectly fine to support simple facts like the existance of something.

Please note, that I deliberately did not invoke WP:GNG above (because at the time I wrote this I didn't saw secondary sources). My argument, however, was that by the already given sources we could see that the theme is being used over many decades. Something that is not historically / encyclopedically relevant would long have been forgotten after so many years - but it isn't. Instead, at the time of my writing above it could be assumed with almost certainty that secondary sources must exist as well (I just was too busy with other stuff to search for them myself), and that is why I invoked WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST.

And, fast forward to the present, Lightburst meanwhile found plenty of secondary sources, thereby proving my predition above and establishing notability per WP:GNG at the same time.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete above and don't mind if the article is eventually kept, especially since some more sources have been found. However, all three keep votes above use "interesting" as a reason to keep the article, and that's not too far from the "I Like It" argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions. I said it was "interesting" too, but what matters here is notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true and is why I was refering to WP:CONTN and WP:NEXIST. I think, at this stage of sourcing and with some portion of good will we can assume that it will be possible to find even more sources (and given that this once was a hot topic there must have been some (written) debate over the topic in past decades, so secondary sources will probably exist as well somewhere), and this combined with the long-term usage over decades fulfills basic notability although at present WP:GNG might not be formally fulfilled. An alternative would be to merge this stuff into another article, but from the viewpoint of content organization and WP:PAGEDECIDE I think it makes more sense to collect the info related to this topic in a separate article, but that's just my opinion. I don't have strong feelings here...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST. The subject meets our general notability guidelines and therefore is worthy of inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the citation of NEXIST and CONTN, what people are saying is, in effect, "Wow, this is so interesting that sources must exist." As pointed out by Doomslayer520, this is really nothing more than "I Like It". Sources need to be about this, not just this itself repeated again and again. But at this point, this article does not meet the notability guidelines. - TransporterMan (TALK) 21:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:SIGCOV The first source I have found is the New York Times: I have determined that the original "Diary of an Unborn Child was read on the floor of the New York State Senate by Republican Senate Majority Leader Earl W Brydges on April 10, 1970. So our article is incorrect. There was also more than passing mention in the Los Angeles Times, and several other passing mentions, including: The New York Times, and Tangzine I will need spend some time adding this information to the article - unless someone wants to help? Lightburst (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a misunderstanding here. It's not at all about "I like it" or not. I think we should have an article about it because it is historically relevant, and thus of encyclopedic value - and it is not in the interest of our readers to not have an article about it. Also, we certainly don't have a criterium for articles to be not "interesting" in order to be notable.

If it can be reasonably well assumed that sources exist, they must not yet be part of the article. However, this assumption must not be based on "blue sky" wishful thinking. But with a controversial topic such as this one in use over so many decades, we can be almost certain that it was discussed in independent media somewhere, although not necessarily in mainstream media like large newspapers which we could easily find online, so it may take some time to find them, possibly even longer than this AfD lasts.

Update: Lightburst has meanwhile found sources (even in large newspapers), so it is clear that WP:GNG is fulfilled.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but it still does not meet WP:GNG, or WP:SIGCOV.- none of the sources are at all in depth, and quite a few are not RS

Of the current 7 sources, the first 2 are from The New York Times; the first does spend 5 or so lines describing how the senator read out "from what he described as “The Dairy of an Unborn Child.”...but not much more about the actual "diary"..the second is barely even one line "On the floor of the Senate chamber, a Republican senator read from a document that he called the “Diary of an Unborn Child.” The third source is just the lyrics from the watchtower, credited to "anonymous". the 4th source, from the LA Times is the best for some useable information..except its only 5 lines or so as well. 5 is a blog, not WP:RS 6 is a Wiki, not WP:RS 7 is another blog, not WP:RS Its mostly just different variations on lyrics in the external links. I do not see that there is anything to support the likelihood of further, in depth material out there. A senator produced it from places unknown, read it out trying to tug a few heartstrings, but didnt get the effect he wanted (if it had, that might've been a claim of significance). It was passed around fundamentalist sources, then rediscovered by bloggers of the weird and wonderful, but the mainstream never investigated it. Curdle (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a controversial topic. That the senator was unsuccessful reading this on the floor of the NY Senate is a given: because it was liberal New York. The subject has been in the public domain since 1970, and has been used over and over by both sides of the controversial issue, and even made into a disturbing or campy song. It is a credit to our readers that we have the subject covered here. Lightburst (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercube (communication pattern)[edit]

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

Not sure about this one - I'm hampered by my lack of understanding of the subject. But checking on the sparse sources, refs #1 & #2 appear to be for general concepts, not the article subject; #3 at least has some apparent relation. The body of the article is a how-to for coding specific algorithms, unsourced. Overall, I'd consider this OR / HOWTO with some hooks to existing terms, but not in a form suitable for an article. - Theoretical computing-savvy editors please assess. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merging to Hypercube internetwork topology, a better article on more or less the same topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, there go. That seems like an excellent redirect target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, from a quick look at the book Grama et al. 2003 actually supports pretty much all of the article, including the algorithms which are explanatory not tutorial; and I dispute that Hypercube internetwork topology is better. This article is the only place in the entire encyclopaedia where people will get even the tiniest clue why "allgather", "allreduce", and other such jargon exist in the literature. A merger may be warranted, but just throwing this away is irresponsible, given how bad the coverage of this subject actually is. Uncle G (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with a main Article as, Hypercube internetwork topology. The Article and its useful information could save this way.Forest90 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although better clarity is needed, maybe even a rename or change of disambiguator, to clarify the distance from hypercube internetwork topology, of which this is a distinct subset. To say its "on more or less the same topic" is to have missed the point altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost Group[edit]

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

Proposing Foremost Group for deletion because there is no specific news related to Foremost Group. The majority of articles that support this entry only support the Elaine Chao accusations. This belongs on her Wikipedia unless significant support can be found to create content specifically about Foremost Group. I was unable to find anything. And that unsupported line that was recently included is a poor attempt to keep. Where is the History? Financials? Transactions? This entry fails WP:BALASP. And we are talking about Foremost Group, not Elaine Chao.--AhmedFaizP (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company is also covered in industry sources, as reflected by additional citations I've added. The fact that the article is not well developed yet is a weak argument for deletion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to keep, it's not clear why "no specific news" is a good enough case for deletion 204.14.239.13 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like a well-researched article. ubiquity (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article merely needs filling out. Many articles start out as stubs and in time are added to. Yes, the company is significant because of the Chao connection, but also as one of the many company articles in Wikipedia. Tmangray (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found and added that now meet the criteria for establishing notability. Striking previous !vote as per WP:HEY. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are either based on company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing in relation to the link with a US senator Mitch McConnell and his wife. I also note that none of the "Keep" !voters above have provided any additional references nor provided any reasons based on policy/guidelines. Topic therefore fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

In fact, I've added quite a few additional references, and more information. Yes, one of the reasons the company is notable is because of its connection to the Secretary of Transportation and her husband, but... how is that notability invalid? The NYT, Pro-Publica, and Forbes articles certainly qualify as "significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources", and they are substantially about the company, not just about her. For example, a multiscreen animated infographic illustrating the company's shipping activity is more than a "mention-in-passing". And the suggestion to fold this article into the Elaine Chao article doesn't make sense, because almost none of this article is about her. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is line ball but what I'd say is that if people believe it should stay, content should be added to it. If this is all there is, it should go. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, per WP:INHERITORG; half of the references are about Chao and McConnell, and the other half are routine coverage in trade industry publications with a few primary sources sprinkled in (press releases, the documentcloud fact sheet, Chao's own website, Bloomberg Profile). Fails WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this another round because a majority of the comments were added prior to proper transclusion of the discussion page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant spam by Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AvantStay[edit]

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

Nothing about this article seems to show significance, and it's blatantly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air on Broadbeach[edit]

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

Non-notable building per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - It does have in-depth coverage from sources like the Gold Coast Bulletin and Architecture Australia. [3][4].Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't call a few sentences in one article and a short paragraph in another in-depth coverage. SL93 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually on closer examination I think you're correct. I strike my !vote. I'm willing to change my mind if there is substantial coverage to be found. Oakshade (talk) 06:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to KDE#Mascot. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konqi[edit]

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

Vastly excessive details about a software mascot, sourced to wikis and forums. Keeps getting janked out of redirect. My assessment is reverting to redirect to KDE#Mascot and making it stick. - Note: there already was a previous AfD that resulted in redirect, but that was a good time ago and for a very stubby version, not really comparable; so putting this up again. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WTH is that band AfD doing in the box? Twinkle be weird, man. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to KDE#Mascot. Not nearly enough in-depth sourcing for a standalone article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is adequate, there's nothing contentious here, and although KDE is less well known than some products, clearly we've accepted computing mascots as a group worth covering. After all, we have Wikipe-tan, with no coverage anywhere outside the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and you know what stands out in Category:computing mascots? 25 of the 28 entries are section redirects... - I'll let you ponder that one for a bit. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm getting irony whiplash here. First After all, we have Wikipe-tan, with no coverage anywhere outside the project. (which is an actual cherry-picked OSE fallacy), and then trying to apply it to the 89% consensus usage? It must be Friday. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipe-tan page is not in article space so has absolutely no relevance to anything in this, or any other AfD, discussion. SpinningSpark 20:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section redirects to KDE#Mascot is very short written, separate page of Konqi need for more details about this mascot. Konqi's page is also available in other languages. 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.171.172.31 (talk)
Redirect per Onel5969. All the references in the article are sourced to KDE.org. There is nothing independent showing notability to justify a standalone page. SpinningSpark 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rename this page to "KDE Mascots"? KDE among mascots have - Konqi, Katie, KDE dragons, Kiki, Kate and Kandalf. Will better if it's will not Konqi's page, it will be the page of all KDE mascots. 03:33 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect per nom. The current sources do not support notability -- none of them are independent. Lacking any better sources, the topic simply does not pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Onel5969 - there is no standalone notability here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Australian Sensation" Craven[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of User:2001:8003:5999:6D00:61F3:A3F5:6FBA:F1A2. I am a neutral helper.

"Doesn't pass notability. One story in a local newspaper. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Editors have been adding an unreliable source." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV of independent, reliable sources to be found, fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NSPORT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something that the IP failed to mention. This is a contested prod, which I added and it was removed. I would have nominated this for deletion at that point but the IP beat me to it. The IP is also right about the unreliable source being added (waprowrestling.weebly.com - a fan site with no oversight), and the article is also subject to a copyright violation that I have just minutes ago removed. Not a notable subject at all and fails every test I can think of. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to only operate at lower tiers of this sport/profession Teraplane (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Masum Reza^📞 16:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - there's a wall of very poor sourcing and claims. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the film fails WP:NFILM. Just Chilling (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Island (2002 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think this article fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Also, all references in the page are either irrelevant, or don't works as links. NickBlamp (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A straight-to-video production that doesn't seem to have any reviews fails WP:NFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the reviews I could find were on sites accepted as suitable for the purposes of NFILM Nosebagbear (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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