Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 July 17 July >

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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tembleque[edit]

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

I don't this article pass WP:GNG. Most of the links are to shops selling the product and a few recipes.

Unfortunately, there are no guidelines for food notability. Using the WP:GNG, I think this article fails to be notable due to the lack of discussion of the food item. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Based on the sources that I was able to find, I'd say this is hovering around the borderline of notability, and I'm going to lean towards keep because of systemic bias against topics pertaining to non-Anglophone areas. Recipes for tembleque are extremely common; I'm not going to try to link to all of them, but there are dozens out there. As well as the two linked in the article, there's one from NYT, for instance (that article/recipe also mentions a book "Coconuts and Collards" by Von Diaz, which seems like a likely candidate for further sourcing, but I don't have access to a copy, unfortunately). I also found an article about its health benefits, though I'm not sure I trust the source to be reliable. It's also mentioned on the official website of the Puerto Rico tourist board, where it's one of six foods mentioned in the first paragraph as being traditional favourites on the island, as well as in other travel guides. Overall, I'm finding a great breadth of coverage, but not a whole lot of depth, but am leaning keep because of potential systemic bias. In the event that this isn't kept, it should at the very least be a redirect to Puerto Rican cuisine. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure how food notability works, but I do know that this is a big thing in Puerto Rican culture. It seems to have a lot of recipes and other sites about it. I also edited the article slightly to add more citations and removing a bit about "Packaged mixes are available" as possible advertising. ___GingeBro (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - All the refs are to recipe websites, some of which promote ingredients used in the recipe (Goya, Silk). No refs for history of the food. David notMD (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It checks out, sounds tasty and so the following policies apply: WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been around the current state from around 2010.
Also, WP:ITEXISTS is a really crappy argument. And you can easily dratify it suitably establish notability. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is food, the reference to BITE is something of a joke. Made you tremble like a jelly did it? That's another one. See WP:CHILLOUT. Andrew D. (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that this article says that the Brazilian name for the dish is manjar branco, and that article states that manjar branco is identical to the Puerto Rican dish tembleque. Can anyone confirm if that is, in fact, true? If so, would it be proper to merge the two articles, so that we don't have two different articles on identical topics, just in different languages? I am actually not sure what the official Wikipedia policy is in cases like this. Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're different. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manjar_blanco#Puerto_Rico --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this dessert is a traditional holiday food, included in Juvenile books for use in American schools, when encouraging the children to learn about cultures from around the world. (See ref for "Salsa stories", which I added). Of course it appears in recipe books. Also, note all the desserts from around the world on Wikipedia, for example: Hakuto jelly--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added two encyclopedia article refs.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:28, 20 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 sourcing of the article has been improved substantially since nomination and I now see a consensus to 'keep'. Just Chilling (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit pudding[edit]

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

I don't this article pass WP:GNG. Most of the links are to shops selling the product and a few recipes.

Unfortunately, there are no guidelines for food notability. Using the WP:GNG, I think this article fails to be notable due to the lack of discussion of the food item. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In its current state the article is poor and inadequately referenced. However, the innumerable ghits for the Scottish butchers and shops (even posh ones like House of Bruar) who offer fruit pudding as one of their wares may not be ideal or impartial sources but amply indicate the widespread availability of the stuff. It's definitely a thing, it's a commonplace one and a distinctive inclusion in the Scottish version of the breakfast fry-up. It's not the kind of thing that would be made in the home, so unlikely to be in a recipe book (aside from ones that say "stick everything in a frying pan"). There is a tangential mention of it here in the amply reliable source, the Dictionary of the Scots Language (though bizarrely the word "slice" is misspelled in the header). The scores of butcher and shop sites may be numerous though primary but this (and other) reviews in the Scotsman is secondary coverage which notes the existence of the stuff without feeling the need to explain what it is. I've also found mention in The Herald (Haggis Brand to remain in Scotland) but via PressReader so am unsure how to copy the link. Improve the article but definitely keep it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, just mentions but from the Guardian, this and this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is ISBN 9781613122112 p. 71, but it only supports a stub. Uncle G (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added several news and book references to the article now, most solidly reliable sources, one to a tabloid though. FWIW, the Herald article I referred to is here. @Uncle G:, what does your source say? @Tyw7:, are you satisfied that the GNG has been fulfilled now? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mutt Lunker, I think it's better. But the problem is there's no general guidelines for food. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So you agree it now demonstrably fulfils the GNG criteria? In which case, the lack of specific guidelines for food may be an omission worth addressing but wouldn't have a bearing on this individual discussion. Ping: @Tyw7: Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mutt Lunker, it's hard to gauge notability with such a broad topic but I had a look at a couple of sources and to me it seem they are passing mentions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question Mutt Lunker, I am trying to look through the sources, and having difficulty finding which article in The Herald refers to fruit pudding. Could you tell me the title of the article, please? I would also suggest referencing it by the article title, author, date and the name of the paper, rather than just "PressReader.com - Your favorite newspapers and magazines" (if it was you who added it - perhaps it wasn't), as PressReader is just a platform for digital copies of a variety of newspapers and magazines, some reliable, some not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mentioned above, though I know that it's difficult to track, that the title is "Haggis Brand to Remain in Scotland" and that I wasn't sure how to deal with the link last night. Initially I couldn't extract a link to copy at all from PressReader; what I've added now at least links to the edition of the paper, though you need to scroll a fair bit to the right until you get to the article. The auto-generated title for the ref is not very helpful, I'll grant you. By all means improve the link and title if you can. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Found a link to the paper itself so this is now addressed. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This dish clearly exists – see BBC, for example. The title is quite generic as there are other types of fruit pudding such as the summer fruit pudding. Perhaps this might be treated as a broad topic with this particular recipe linking to Full_breakfast#Scotland. Anyway, that's all a matter of ordinary editing and we should build on the current version rather than deleting it, per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew Davidson, I was not disputing the fact that the item exists. In fact WP:ITEXISTS is the weakest form of argument. That said, when doing a before, my first page was full of places to buy said object and the second page was of receipes. I personally think these are not the significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • These very well may not be but the references have since been augmented and consist of substantially more than places to buy it or recipes. That said, the addition of reliably sourced recipes would benefit the article; aside from lists of ingredients, I didn't come up with much in that regard. What did you find @Tyw7:? Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am looking through results for "fruit pudding" in digitised Scottish newspapers from about 1850-1960 (and a few later papers) on the British Newspaper Archive. While I have found some recipes for a fruit pudding that seems to be similar to the one described in this WP article, it is only one of many kinds of fruit pudding. Some were made with fresh fruit, some with tinned or soaked dry fruit; some had a suet crust holding the fruit (like a meat pie), some were flat with a layer of batter first, and a layer of fruit on top, which sank to the bottom during cooking; some were made of tapioca mixed with preserved fruit; some were cold with bread lining the mould, in other words, summer fruit pudding. For the fruit puddings that seem to be like this one, there are recipes with egg and without. They involved boiling the pudding in a cloth for 3 hours or steaming it in a basin for 4 hours (eggless), or steaming it in a basin for 2 hours (with egg). This may well be why this type of fruit pudding has become a commercially made product! (They don't seem to be like Christmas pudding, which of course is also boiled or steamed for a long time, and has lots of fruit in it .... will compare recipes.)

    However, as far as an encyclopaedia entry goes, these sources don't really help support an article just about one type of fruit pudding in Scotland. And the picture has the caption "Traditional Scottish Fruit Pudding", but all the sources are from the 2000s ..... I will try to look for more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although now I think perhaps the boiled and steamed fruit pudding recipes I found were more like Clootie dumpling - which comes up on a Google Book Search for ' "fruit pudding" Scotland' in all the Rough Guides to Scotland .....
    • You beat me to it. Sounds like you are on the track of generic fruit puddings, largely dessert ones and largely the one referred to as clootie dumpling (broadly similar to Christmas pudding and commonly made in the home) but not the one referred to as "fruit pudding". Egg wouldn't feature in this one; there's a lot of overlap in ingredients but this one is more sausage-like, rather than dessert or cake-like. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am just searching for "fruit pudding", which is the title of this article. The recipe titles are just "Fruit pudding" (often), or "Cold fruit pudding", "fruit pudding without eggs", "delicious fruit pudding", etc. For many years in Scotland, it seems that the term could refer to any kind of fruit pudding, which leads me to wonder how long the term has referred mainly to the kind fried for breakfast. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the difficulty with a search for a term which is used both generically and specifically. I'd imagine you'd get similar results for "pie" in Scottish cookbooks but the one understood to be the default is specifically one type (what's known elsewhere as a Scotch pie). I'd hazard that few of these fruit puddings are particularly well known and that none would be widely envisaged as default fruit pudding. I can remember it as a child in the 70s, though I couldn't swear for certain as to what it was called. The reference to Alex Harvey can be referring to a date no later than 1982, though the book was written later. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • RebeccaGreen, is the article title too vague then? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the name by which the item is referred. We're not talking about one of many desserts with fruit in them that could be referred to as a fruit pudding, we're talking about the thing known as "fruit pudding". Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mutt Lunker, searching for "fruit pudding scottish" only brought up links to shops. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure what your point is and it is evident that others have been more successful in their searching for refs, making discussion of your original unfruitful searches seem rather redundant. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • What I have been trying to do is look for evidence that this is a default term for this particular kind of pudding, and what I have found that many things were called "fruit pudding" in Scottish newspapers. In the historic papers, there is no mention of "fruit pudding" as part of a breakfast dish. I don't know how long it has had this meaning (if indeed it is the main current meaning). To have an article, we need sources writing about the topic - and I agree, most of the sources currently in the article are passing mentions only. They verify that it exists, and some mention some of its ingredients, but they do not constitute significant coverage. I think a WP:BROAD article may be better, unless there is evidence of significant coverage of this type of "fruit pudding". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tyw7, if you are searching for "fruit pudding scottish" in inverted commas, in that order, I doubt you will find much at all. "scottish fruit pudding", perhaps - it's a more likely word order, but I have been searching for "fruit pudding" in inverted commas, plus Scotland, or Scottish, or Scots, as that word may well occur elsewhere in the source. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • RebeccaGreen, without the quotation marks. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Then you will find anything that has the words fruit, pudding and Scottish in it, and promoted websites will come at the top of the search results. It's usually more effective to use more targeted search terms. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this AFD discussion though, are we in agreement that deletion is not an appropriate course and that we should move to speedy keep? The aspects that the discussion has turned to can be addressed on the article talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I don't think so. The only Keep arguments so far are WP:ITEXISTS, and sources which have only passing mentions of this kind of fruit pudding. If the article is expanded during the AfD to cover a WP:BROAD range of fruit puddings, with this as one type, or if someone finds significant coverage, that might be a reason to keep it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passing or otherwise, the multiple mentions in reliable sources are a world away from the kind of examples given under WP:ITEXISTS. It plainly more than just exists in obscurity. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mutt Lunker, currently the only notability guidelines that apply to food is GNG, and that doesn't allow notability just because something exist unlike other guidelines. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read my last post? In fact, have you read WP:ITEXISTS? And you don't have to keep pinging me, this is on my Watchlist. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoops. That's the default setting of the reply tool I'm using.

            And yes I did. GNG requires significant coverage not just passing mentions.

            However, some subjects have looser notability criterias and will include items if, for example, an entertainer has an award from a major organization like the academies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it helps: ISBN 9780313327988 p.136 is a list of the components of a "full" English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish breakfast, and it calls this "fruity pudding". Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. One reference stood out for me - Maw Broon's Cookbook. Maw Broon is an extremely well-known fictional Scottish cook, and that recipe is very likely to be authentic. Narky Blert (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Narky Blert, https://www.amazon.co.uk/Maw-Broons-Cookbook-Every-Special/dp/1902407458
    the book's description says "Launched in 1936 in the "Sunday Post" in Scotland, The Broons are undoubtedly Scotland's first family - the Nation's favourites - with a readership covering all generations. The Broons 'annual' sells over 100,000 copies. This is a facsimile of Maw Broon's very own cookbook, which we borrowed from the sideboard at No. 10 Glebe Street - first made for her by her mother-in-law when 'Maw' married 'Paw', and added-to over the years with recipes for every day and special days, from friends and neighbours and others that simply caught Maw's eye in "The Sunday Post", or cut-out of the backof a flour bag. These are the very recipes that became the favourite dishes of the whole extended family - Maw and Paw, Granpaw, Daphne, Horace, Joe, Maggie, Hen, the Twins and 'the bairn'.The strip itself is still hugely popular, with the "Sunday Post" having a circulation of over 1,000,000 copies every week, and there are some examples of the strip from years gone by that Maw must have clipped into her Cookbook- perhaps as reminders of special days. We've just left the 'bits and pieces' that you find tucked into a cookbook, exactly as we found them - stains and all.
    "Maw Broon's Cookbook" is published at a time when nostalgia items are extremely popular, and although obviously firm favourites in Scotland, there will be interest nationwide, with support and endorsement from celebrity names - Gordon Ramsay, Lorraine Kelly, Ewan McGregor to name a few. The BBC's Robbie Shepherd and Tom Morton will lend a hand too! There will be promotion in DC Thomson's portfolio of newspapers and magazines - including "The Sunday Post", "The Courier", "The Scots Magazine", and "The People's Friend"."
    Also, the first review says "Imaginative, clever, mock-facsimile of a Scottish family cookbook. One for both keen back to basics cooks and Broons fans." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to the intent of the post immediately above but in case there is any confusion, it is only the stated author of the book who is fictional; the book is real and the contents are highly authentic. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To note, the ref is to fruit pudding's inclusion in a list of items for a Scottish breakfast, as opposed to a recipe for the making of fruit pudding. That this particular book includes it does lend authority to it being a notably typical inclusion in such a breakfast Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mutt Lunker, well the book is fictional and, in my eyes, does not lend to much credibility. For all we know, it's a parody of what a stereotypical Scot has for breakfast. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book is not fictional, only the byline. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the avoidance of any doubtMaw Broon's Cookbook is certainly not a work of fiction. It is a highly successful book of Scottish recipes. The conceit (for marketing and tie-in purposes) is that it is supposed to be compiled by the fictional Maw Broon from the Broons, but this does not diminish it as a source. Dunarc (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 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 delete and redirect to Disney Parks, Experiences and Products. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Fox Consumer Products[edit]

20th Century Fox Consumer Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Division of 20th Century Fox that is not individually notable enough for its own article. Trivialist (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Weisbard[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. I cannot find a lick of independent coverage. Holding executive level positions also doesn't make one notable. Praxidicae (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there were promo and copyvio issues I felt more pressing to take care of (but not enough to speedy delete) but I agree with Praxidicae's assessment of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:20, 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 keep. TheSandDoctor Talk 03:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetaTrader 4[edit]

MetaTrader 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a product brochure. References aren't great - mostly press releases, how-to articles, and the manufacturer's website. There are indeed books and articles about it out there, but the former are mostly how-to and the latter are reviews or press releases. Doesn't seem particularly noteworthy to me -- if there were reliable sources saying it's, say, one of the top 5 most-used products of its type or something, I might be persuaded otherwise, but as-is I think it doesn't belong. creffett (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article might not be great, but this is clearly notable - and has tons, and I mean tons, of third party coverage. This is the most widely available software for Forex trading, and it has a programming language on top of which people code their own (or... offer to, dare I say, gullible 3rd parties) trading robots. Existence of numerous programming guides (e.g. [1]) rather clearly indicate this is notable (heck - I've never used MT4 myself, and I still know what it is). Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject's noteworthiness is supported by third-party publications. For example, this article laments the widespread use and near-monopoly status of MetaTrader among Forex brokers. One of the signs of this wiki article's importance is its monthly page views count. What should be done, probably, is article improvement with better sources. Enivid (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very widely used trading platform for Forex traders and the dominant one in the industry, the page could do with improvements but should be kept. Sargdub (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please keep this. If there are problems with the article, improve it. But, as the unanimous opinion of others already show, MT4 remains a major tool in Forex trading and for Wikipedia to ignore it entirely would be a very regrettable omission. David M Rowell (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Enivid. Best - Blake44 (talk) 23:25, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Sanjay[edit]

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

He has not acted in any films and has not received significant media coverage either. Fails WP:NACTOR.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amitov Teja[edit]

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

There is no significant media coverage for Amitov Teja (look at his wiki page for the references: they all refer to his dad Teja and the one link that refers to him is a dead link). He also hasn't acted in a main role in any movie. Fails WP:NACTOR.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:46, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Vikram.[edit]

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

This actor has not acted in any films so far and the previously created page for Dhruv Vikram has been changes into a redirect to Vikram (actor). Also fails WP:NACTOR.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one film role in an upcoming film, so does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage but he may well be notable in the future with other roles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. No point in the titles, please; no point in such texts, either.-The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 23 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. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teena Singh[edit]

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

Sources for this actress are pretty useless, as far as I can tell - promo listings, fluff pieces and one promo interview. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CONFRONTING DELETION - Ms Teena SIngh is an upcoming actor. She has done lot of commercials and few movies. She should get the due in wikipedia. Imewhy26 (talk · 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:33, 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. Clear consensus that the subject fails WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahram Jafarinejad[edit]

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

Non-notable film critic. None of these sources substantiate a WP:GNG pass. Sources 1 & 5 are the same article which simply lists him as a member of the Iranian film Selection Committee, as does source 6. 2&10 are also the same source, which are references in a book that he translated and did not write. 3&8 are again the same source, which is one passing reference in an academic paper. 4 is simply a link to his own book. 7 is a mention in the credits of a TV show. And 9 is again the subject simply being listed, along with others, as being the members of an award jury for books on cinema. These basic mentions, literally not going beyond mentioning his name as part of a group in most cases, do not establish any sort of notability. The article's tone also suggests that it violates WP:NOTPROMO. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:PROMO intended solely to publicize the subject, regardless of article tone. Article created by now-blocked sock (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexkia1399). A copy is stored in the sandbox of one of the other blocked socks [2]. Another copy is stored in the sandbox of a user already blocked for promotion [3], who also edited the draft previously created by yet another SPA [4]. As a matter of policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. As a matter of convenience, deleting this article via AfD will allow admins to invoke G4 later when more socks pop up to recreate it. Bakazaka (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, despite being winner of few non notable prizes. For sources in Persian:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Farhikht (talk) 14:32, 21 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 subject fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional places in Yes Minister[edit]

List of fictional places in Yes Minister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hopelessly in-universe and unreferenced with a large dash of speculative WP:OR on where these places might be located thrown in for good measure. Fails point 1 of WP:IINFO as it does not discuss "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of these places. Fails the GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that discusses any of these places either individually or as a set. schetm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Again, wholly non-encyclopaedic. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references and probably original research. Peter James (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I like Yes Minister as much as the next guy, but this really is awful. It's unsourced plot summary bristling with original research. Reyk YO! 13:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and above. Barca (talk) 12:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this quite lame attempt at article creation. -The Gnome (talk) 17:55, 23 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. I find the 'keep' commentators persuasive that the subject is notable. Post-AFD work is needed but that is a matter for subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pornsak Songsaeng[edit]

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

No indication of importance, one link is inaccessible, one is database. Do not exist significant coverage from reliable sources. Viztor (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only valid rationale for deletion, "Do not exist significant coverage from reliable sources," is untrue. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article does include coverage although the machine translation doesn't render it well for me, but as Phil Bridger pointed out above, a google book search has a first result which makes it pretty clear the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 15 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) 21:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that he is mentioned in English language books and other scholarly works - [5][6][7][8], and with the sources in Thai already given (I'm sure there are more sources, and there also appear to be additional sources under the spelling Pornsak Songsang), I think he should qualify under GNG. He also appears to have been in a film - [9]. Hzh (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read "He stared on stage in 1981, from he was esbelaited his music band ." The text of the contested article has obviously been constructed entirely uncontaminated by care and attention. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that is a reason to either fix the article or tag it as a rough translation, which had already been done before this was nominated for deletion, rather than a reason to delete the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Khanna MD[edit]

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

Was speedied once for being an advertisement, then quickly re-created, and an admin declined the speedy since most of the advertising had been trimmed. However, he's a successful doctor, but does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable eye surgeon, being spammed across Wikipedia (including articles on patients, such as this one and this one) by the article's creator. May be a paid editor. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above. Promotionaarticle for a routine MD. MB 01:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, Non-notable eye surgeon, all signs of UDP. Meeanaya (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 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 speedy delete. WP:G5. Just Chilling (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lopača (river)[edit]

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

Article created by Yahadzija sock in violation of global ban and thus unambiguously eligible for speedy deletion (CSD G5). An editor has contested speedy deletion because the article "seems to meet notability criteria (sic)". Even if true--and I would argue it does not--notability is not relevant to CSD G5; content created by banned users, notable and non-notable alike, is subject to deletion per Wikipedia:Banning policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The underlying philosophical premise is WP:DENY, not notability, and more long-term damage is done allowing banned users (especially Yahadzija) to trickle in content (especially non-notable minor tributaries) in this manner. Note also that prevention of enforcement of a global ban is explicitly disallowed and sanctionable by the WMF. Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as obvious G5. No major edits by users that are not banned. --MrClog (talk) 20:38, 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 keep. There is no clear consensus between keep or merge, but a clear consensus against deletion. As such the AfD will be closed and discussion about whether or not to merge and where to merge to can continue in its proper venue, i.e. on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akira (2021 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Akira (2021 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · (2021 film) Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two months ago when I first nominated this article for deletion, it was in part because of the fact it was two months early in regards to its filming start. The decision was to keep based on GNG. As of today, the film had once again been delayed indefinitely. It will be suggested that it meets the GNG which I’ll disagree with because the details around its production history just don’t bolster it well. Projects like Blood Meridian have had long stretches of planned production with ultimately no result and they don’t have a standalone article for that. The editors on the Marvel Cinematic keep those articles out of a mainspace position until such a time it warrants being there. Akira’s production history isn’t in my opinion strong enough to remain in the mainspace. On the purposes of the film being delayed I propose it either be deleted, it’s content merged into the Akira (manga)/Akira (1988 film) article or it be merged into the Draft:Akira (2021 film) to be able to be fleshed out there until such a time it’s notable enough to exist in mainspace again. Rusted AutoParts 18:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that the GNG is still met hasn't changed because of the delay. There is history of the attempts to bring a live action version of Akira to the screen, which is not going to change at this point. I would reasonably support a merge to a potential Akira (franchise) article given that at leas two new Akira projects have also been announced, but that needs to be created first. --Masem (t) 19:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • For sake of the fact the winds are blowing "merge", I have created Akira (franchise) which I would request that this article, give or take a few changes, can be history merged into. (I can do that after this has closed, but I cannot take premature action on until this is closed.) --Masem (t) 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, much information available on the effort to make this. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t mean the article can exist as it currently does. It’s been indefinitely delayed. Production of Akira (upcoming film) would make for a better title if anything Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case why not start a move discussion? AfD is not a cleanup request or merge discussion. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and start a move or merge discussion. Masum Reza📞 08:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:NFF, because to keep is to intentionally mislead readers into thinking a film will happen when this is not the case. A history of planning does not equate a tangible product. This is exactly what WP:NFF was written to address. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have plenty of articles on projects that never came to pass, as long as there is sufficient notable content to explain the history and reasoning why it never happened. GNG overrides NFF in this case. If all we had for this film was its announcement earlier this year, the planned start of production, and this new delay, then I would fully agree but we have 6 years of documentable history (which this article doesn't fully spell out yet, but a good amount is in there) that is highly relevant. --Masem (t) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is the deceptive framing of this topic. Right now, Wikipedia is telling readers, hey, this is an upcoming film! We know that unless filming starts, anything can happen, like this production delay just did. There is zero telling when this will ever be filmed. Fine if there is sufficient content for a standalone article, but it shouldn't pretend to be about a film. It's history of planning for a possible film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that is easily fixed to be clear that its unclear if this will be made - I just changed the lede for that. The fact that it was just about to be produced is still a significant milestone. --Masem (t) 02:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made are further cementing my opinion that the article needs merging or repurposing. Rusted AutoParts 03:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Akira (manga), the majority of the content is about the copyright, which can easily be merged to the work itself. Any of the other information are CRYSTAL at this early stage, not to mention the misleading title when this film is indefinitely postponed. Viztor (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Variety reports, "Warner Bros. has put its long-in-development 'Akira' adaptation on hold indefinitely, sources tell Variety." More reason not to pretend that a film is upcoming with a deceptive infobox and deceptive cast and crew credits as if a tangible product was going to happen with their involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 04:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hypothetical - what if a week of filming happened and then this happened? (keeping all factors of all the past events in development in place)? Do you merge back, going against NFF? This is why GNG is the guiding factor here, not a project-speicfic guideline. --Masem (t) 04:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you merge back. I’ll use the example of Gore (film), the Gore Vidal movie that was all filmed and in post starring Kevin Spacey. Once the news about Spacey’a misconduct was revealed, it was cancelled, with post-production midway done. A deletion discussion resulted in the film being redirected, as it was no longer planned on being released. NFF is utilized for the very specific film side of things because they can get cancelled all the time. Mouse Guard is another example. All cast and everything and in the month before filming was supposed to start, cancelled. What is necessary about maintaining an entire article about a film that hasn’t happened/will never happen (depending the situation) when all that info could still be accessed at a subsection in a designated redirect location? There are specific situations where a production history is so detailed it’s fine or necessary to have it be it’s own separate article, see Production of Watchmen or Production of Ben-Hur (1959 film). But this Akira film has nowhere near the same indepth production history. Rusted AutoParts 04:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can see merging short coverage - as both Gore and Mouse Guard had - into relevant articles (and to that, I think it was a mistake to draft Mouse Guard, since the book series article has plenty of room for all the details for the stalled production). Films that have been given sufficient news coverage are going to be valid search terms, so removing them out of mainspace is not appropriate. Now, yes, merging may be an option, but not given the size of either the manga or anime articles. Let's imaging this was merged to Akira (franchise). The only major change in that move would be stripping out the lede, infobox, and bottom matters - the rest of the text is 100% reuseable. Which begs the question, why can't it be an article if the bulk of the text is the same? If the complaint is that the lede implies the film is still happening, that's nowhere close to a valid reason to delete because that's fixable. This is the problem, you're holding NFF as if it were a hard-edge policy, which it is not - it is subservient to the GNG which is also only a guideline with grey areas. Again, I get the point of NFF to prevent films with practically no information from having its standalone article before production starts, but that's ignoring the importance of the GNG. As to whether we will need a "Production of Akira..." article at some point, I doubt it, but that has little to do with the GNG and more with SIZE concerns.
        • (Also, as I write this, I recognize and point out that AFD should not at all be used when content is expected to be merged. Even if this were merged, we'd still keep this article as a redirect as it is a valid search term, and there's nothing that needs to be deleted in terms of contributions). --Masem (t) 05:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Mouse Guard draft was always where the film article was located. I created it there to flesh the article out prior to filming, however since it was cancelled it wasn’t in a place where it was in violation of a guideline because it was generated first in a draftspace. “Films that have been given sufficient news coverage are going to be valid search terms, so removing them out of mainspace is not appropriate”, I feel you’re missing the point of NFF. It applies strongly here because it’s thw film wing of GNG bad what constitutes a notable film. And the core philosophy of NFF is that a film should have begun filming to satisfy the guideline. The current article as is is just info that can be gathered at any location. It’s not like a reader looking up the project can’t be redirected to a subsection of Akira (manga) or Akira (1988 film) when they type in Akira (2021 film) or (upcoming film) or (film project). The article’s production section starts with baseline information about the franchise, and the rest is stretched out information that would fit the production section of a film that did happen or did begin filming. There’s information in it about the creator mulling a television series not relevant to the film itself, No one is being done a disservice if the article is merged elsewhere. Rusted AutoParts 06:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for reasons mentioned above. While the film continues to no longer be in active development I don't see the utility of it having its own article. NathanielTheBold (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it's identity delayed doesn't prove that it's not notable. We do have notability criteria for films but that doesn't override GNG. Masum Reza📞 08:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge too soon to have a stand-alone article on this film which now seems likely to not be released in 2021. As noted above, the film-rights section would be better served in an article on the franchise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The rules are clear - unless principal photography has begun, the film article should not exist. - Richiekim (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • NFF is not a rule and it is subservent to GNG in any case (As the last AFD suggested). A well documented effort to make a film that has yet to reach production, and even ultimately cancelled, is still something that can stand on its own in terms of a Wikipedia article. --Masem (t) 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? It is absolutely a rule. WP:Notability (films) is listed as a guideline. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines nor policy are rules (outside of things like BLP, COPYVIO, and NFC). They're meant to describe practice, not prescribe practice. --Masem (t) 16:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that metric, GNG shouldn't be followed then, as that's a policy. You say describe practice as if that's a negative thing. It is not. NFF and Notability (films) as a whole is the film specific sector for GNG when it comes to that topic. NFF is the metric used when determining hen a film is on the horizon qualifies for article status, and an important facet of that is if the project is filming. NFF should not be tossed out here just because you don't see it as important. Rusted AutoParts 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not policy either, its a guideline. That's why we use AFD to discuss within the framework of what notability is if an article should be deleted. In that framework, meeting the GNG is one way to show notability for any topic, whereas NFF is an alternate approach for films if the GNG is not met. I still totally agree with the idea that if all you can say about a film is that it has been greenlit, but no production has started, then yes, NFF is wholly applicable here (as well as the GNG) since there's not much to cover yet. But this case of a film in development hell may fail the NFF but meets the GNG, and as noted in the previous close, the GNG takes precedence here. But that's why we're at AFD to discuss it, its not "automatically fails NFF so delete". --Masem (t) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: There has been instances when an unreleased film that hasn't begun filming has an article by satisfying WP:GNG. One that comes to mind is Marudhanayagam. In this case, there may be enough material for a standalone article. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:20, 23 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anubex[edit]

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

non-notable company, no in depth coverage and what little I can find are just passing mentions and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources for GNG.Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a promotional article with at most borderline notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 20 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. Well, it seems like there is no evidence of the requisite third-party coverage we'd need to establish notability and several delete arguments on this basis. Thus delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind Tree[edit]

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

I know I tend to be biased on this topic but hear me out. To begin with, the four references in the article don't even mention The Mind Tree at all. It should be known that the book was allegedly written by Tito Mukhopadhyay, a low-functioning autistic individual who supposedly uses Rapid prompting method, a scientifically unproven communication technique.

In a recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination), a user made the following point:

Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.

Yet all the possible sources for this book that I have found do not question that method at all. For instance, the Simon and Schuster page says "Although he is severely autistic and nearly nonverbal, Tito’s ability to communicate through his extraordinary writing is astonishing." Publisher's Weekly says "the experience of reading the book together with testimony from psychiatrist Lorna Wing convinces that Tito wrote it himself." Even a journal article claims "He is the author of three books: The Mind Tree, The Gold of the Sunbeams, and How Can I Talk If My Lips Don't Move?"

If the article should stay, editors will have to find sources for this book that also question RPM, otherwise, they cannot be reliable. Ylevental (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue here is whether the book is notable, not whether it is scientifically sound. 2.34.246.55 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hear what you're saying about sources being reliable on matters of science. However, I think this is kind of similar to having, say, an NYT interview with an author who writes books on telepathy, where the interview doesn't mention that telepathy is clearly bunk. Sure, ideally the source /should/ question pseudoscience, but (particularly for book reviews), I don't know that it automatically makes the source unreliable for establishing notability that they go along with the premise of the book. Considering the notability of other books full of pseudoscience such as The Secret, I'm pretty sure that notability-establishing sources are not required to reject the content of the book. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing Note A blog post[10] advocating for "Facilitated Communication" has linked to this discussion and urged people to participate. ApLundell (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article has no references. The three that were recently removed don't even mention the book, and were therefore not real references. Besides that, the article makes no assertion of notability at all. It asserts only that the book exists, which is clearly not enough. After a few minutes of Googling, I couldn't find any notable mention of the book, besides booksellers. If this article has supporters, they need to explain why it's notable. (And that's all completely seperate from the rather awkward BLP problems.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just not finding sources on the book. There is some coverage of the author, although I am by no means convinced that he would pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 24 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wired (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted by AFD in 2010. Contested PROD with no reason given. Page was created by a user with the same name as the singer of this band. This page has no referencing apart from two Facebook links to a recording studio and a member's subsequent band. A Google search for "Wired band Telford" does not yield any results about this band at all, apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Fails WP:V for these reasons. Even without references, this page makes no claim of notability about Wired that passes WP:BAND: it is light on detail about what this band actually achieved, if anything. This page is a self-promotion that does not even promote the self. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Wallachia Wallonia, your PROD was declined because this has already been at AfD, as you note, and you can't use a PROD on a previous AfD nomination. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing to suggest this band is notable: they weren't notable in the 1990s when they existed (no radio play, no charting material, etc.), and they aren't notable now. Presumably the page was recreated by the band member as promotion for the 2015 EP reissue of the band's old material, but that EP passed by completely unnoticed as well. It speaks volumes that even using Facebook as sources, the creator can only find sources relating to two different bands, not to the subject of the article. Richard3120 (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a contested speedy deletion, not a contested PROD, and the articles deleted before were about another band[11]. Peter James (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the nominator said it was a PROD, which was what confused me. Richard3120 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article contains no references and no indication of notability. Peter James (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The band's bland name makes a search difficult but you can follow the nominator's suggestion, or try something like <"Wired" + "Glenn Mann">. I tried several such things and can find nothing but a few Wiki mirrors and tired YouTube links. When the band themselves can say little beyond the fact that they existed, that reflects their lack of accomplishments and notability. Not suited for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 22 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. Clear consensus in favour of keeping this list at this time. The nominator also has stated that they no longer stand by their nomination of this article (by not SKCRIT #1 due to the single "delete" !vote). TheSandDoctor Talk 03:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools[edit]

List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not ready for mainspace. Ultimately I think this should move to draft space, but my attempt to DRAFTIFY was politely and firmly contested so I have self-reverted and am nominating it here. It is of questionable notability - there are no equivalent elementary school lists for other major cities that I could find. We also don't normally have articles about elementary schools as they lack notability. In fairness we do list elementary schools for smaller districts and such a list would overwhelm any separate article making it appropriate for a split as LISTN does have some leeway for lists of non-notable entries. However, that notability would assume anything close to a complete list. There are 451 primary schools in Toronto. While this list does not need to be complete with the information to be displayed in the table, to be ready for mainspace it needs more than the 13 schools (3% of total schools) present. Sending to draft (or userspace) for further development and/or restoring the redirect seems like the correct outcome at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my nomination in light of the table that Bradv was able to generate. It is now not an indiscriminate list and is in a shape where interested editors who add other information overtime has a strong base to build from. Thanks Bradv. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in reply: Yes we do have lists of elementary schools, usually in school district article. E.g. Jefferson City School District. Toronto is bigger though. But see: List of public elementary schools in New York City. AFDs about individual elementary schools are usually concluded by linking to the mention in the school district article. --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've worked on the sister page List of secondary schools in the Toronto District School Board and thought it could use a partner. There are several pages on elementary schools in this district that may be orphans without this list. I do not agree with the argument that notability rests on how complete the list is, since wikiepdia is always evolving. I do agree that notability rests upon the content of the list which is up for debate. Ultimately, wikipedia is a collaborative process and pages cannot (and should not) be constructed by one user only in a draftspace and the mainspace is the only place for other editors to see and to edit and improve. I've started many lists like these that have went on to featured list status with collaboration that would be impossible if they were deleted like this page has. I'm glad this is up for discussion, I was frustrated that hours of work were deleted without any discussion nearly causing me to quit wikipedia altogether. Also to consider, Wikipedia is not paper WP:Paper so there is absolutely no harm in having this list, even incomplete, on wikipedia for others to improve. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look again, there now several independent and reliable sources added to the article. More will be added later. Please let me know if the CBC, or the EQAO websites are not independent or reliable, in addition to the TDSB official website. Also, the information is in no way in discriminant since it is not a random collection at all, but a finite list with a defined scope. Mattximus (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "list itself" is not a "topic"; the list is a format for presenting information. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" since it is limited to a distinct number of a specific class of elementary schools. I have sourced the inclusion criteria for avoidance of doubt. It is established practice in educational articles to group elementary schools, that are mostly nn, together either in a list or in the Board article to record key information about them. If this list were deleted they would have to be added to the Board page and that would make the page look unbalanced. Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft space I agree this page is not ready for main space. It is, frankly, crap. If editors are willing to work on and provide ALL of the information that is required to fill the columns, it could be a useful list, I suppose. However, I am dubious. Myself, I am not sure of the value of listing the testing scores. They seem to be numbers without questionable validity to represent the quality of a school. I am not sure of the purpose of a list of schools here when the school board does so itself, with maps showing their catchment areas. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's opinion that "this article is not ready for mainspace" is fundamentally contrary to our editing policy which states that

    Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

This method of making a quick start on a topic is the reason that Wikipedia has its name – wiki means quick. This quick and dirty method replaced the perfectionist approach of Nupedia which was an utter failure. Our successful approach is explicitly incomplete and imperfect – that's why every page has a disclaimer; why we have concepts like stubs; and why we have templates like {{dynamic list}}. If you want to make it even clearer to readers that a page is under construction then you just put a template like {{under construction}} on it. What you don't do is delete it as that would be disruptive and bitey.
Note also that the topic certainly passes WP:LISTN because there are substantial sources which list and analyse these schools such as the Report Card on Ontario's Elementary Schools.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario about a list of schools within one big section of Toronto. There was considerable sentiment that organizing by area was not best, though the list-article was kept for the time being (I think it should be broken up now). Discussion led to thinking that there should be lists of schools grouped by school district within the city, instead (though there turns out to be complication where districts don't align with city borders). I think that listing schools by school district is what works well elsewhere in Wikipedia, and can cover the schools in Toronto, too. (Pinging Nfitz, Bearcat, and PKT who participated there.)
I presume school district lists could be organized by (or be sortable by) primary vs. secondary vs. post-secondary, and by location/area within the city. And articles about any small area within the city can mention any elementary school, say, but wikilink to its coverage within the relevant school district list. Having mention somewhere for all elementary schools, is, in practice, essential to our avoiding cycles of new article creation and deletion for scattered separate elementary schools (usually the school name should be a redirect to an {{anchor}} for its coverage within a big list). In the list-article, most elementary school mentions should be "black-links", i.e. avoid redlinks to avoid suggesting that separate articles should be created.
In that AFD it was noted there that there exists:
Here, this AFD is about a list-article for one type of school in one of the districts. It seems like a useful chunk of the total, and can be referenced from Education in Toronto article, which lists the school districts and also independent schools. It is fine in general for sublists to be split out from list-articles that are otherwise too long, and it is just an editorial decision when to split, or how. Splitting out elementary schools seems okay. It could be argued that splitting within school district by geographical area, instead, could be better, but I leave that to others. I hope that there are editors who will properly organize this stuff, including merging away the Scarborough list (which combined schools from 3 or 4 districts). --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there is to be a list of public schools, then doing it by school board is the most pragmatic way of doing it, I'd think. It's how people around here (in Ontario) would probably expect to find the information. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although the list oughta be quickly developed so that it is comprehensive. A sublist of one type of school can be split out of a list-article about schools in a big district. That is just an editing decision. Merger vs. different split can be discussed at Talk page, with notice given to Talk:Toronto District School Board. It is okay that this is an incomplete list for the moment, and I like the table, but most entries should be "black-links" i.e. no link, rather than redlinks. The name of a school like Adam Beck Junior Public School (which showed as a redlink) should be redirected to its row in the table, and the mention in the table should be delinked. As I just did for that one. It required using "id=" to set an anchor in its table row. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just merged into the table all the elementary schools of this district from the Scarborough list-article (which should be dropped soon, IMO). I think the ESL percentage and Reading, Writing, Mathematics scores columns ought to be dropped; parents considering where to buy a house they should look this stuff up somewhere reliable and regularly updated, which must be available. Add columns for relatively unchanging info such as date of establishment of school, and add a description or notes column, instead (adding to current location, size, grades covered). --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a priority on having a simple complete list rather than an incomplete list with incomplete ancillary data (we really don't need test scores here). I've proposed such a version on the talk page. – bradv🍁 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this had been the content to begin with I would never have nominated and have already support the simple list Brad included on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Note on process. The article has been developed quite a bit and discussed on its Talk page, and the nominator has applied strikethrough to their nomination statement. I am not sure if striking that way is most proper, because it makes the AFD hard to read, although of course the nominator is allowed to indicate they have changed their mind. But this AFD must continue, anyhow, and the nominator cannot (and did not attempt to) close the AFD, because there are outstanding !votes for "Delete" and "Draftify" from two editors. User:Ritchie333 and User:Alaney2k, do you care to change/update your !votes given developments? It is okay if they do not choose to make any update or even to reply. Unless they both change to "Keep" then this AFD should run its course and be closed regularly by an uninvolved party. Actually a week has gone by since the AFD nomination though, but there have been substantial comments up to today the 17th, so I don't know when a regular close is allowed. I !voted "Keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in this edit I reduced the stricken out range to just the nominator's words, so no longer striking out the AFD's basic info. As the AFD is going on. And that was a day or two ago and seems to have been accepted. I guess it is okay for the nominator to strike out all their words, as it now displays; it just appears wrong to strike out the title of AFD, the links to searches, etc., at the top. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we generally don't consider most individual elementary schools notable. Redirecting to a board, or in the case of a board with hundreds of elementary (451 apparently), list of schools, seems reasonable. And lists of schools within a board seem to be a common enough thing in the media that this would meet GNG - like this. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, the original issues that would have potentially justified deletion have been addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 04:31, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Opatoshu[edit]

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

Screenwriter tagged for notability for a year with no improvm. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know if one reference and IMDB are enough, but since he is from the 70's there may not be much news coverage today. I am undecided on keeping or deleting but may see if I can find more info on him.Peter303x (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately screenwriters are not covered well even today. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobicure[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE, the only coverage I was able to find was either trivial or not independent of the subject. The best coverage I found was [12], a feature on one of the company's products in a publication of unclear reliability. Previously nominated for G11 by Steve Quinn, which was denied, and nominated for PROD by Onel5969, dePROD by the initial editor, who did not provide much in the way of a rationale or changes to the article following dePROD. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got distracted at work from completing this nomination but was headed here myself. Lacks the sorts of reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail required by NCORP. Most coverage, both in the article and found in my BEFORE, are either press releases or churnalism based on press releases. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Despite the claims of solving the world's health problems with technology, it seems that this company actually has two apps for health-related social chat. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of them has been downloaded 2000 times and is used by 500 people. Those are not high numbers. I see no indication that WP:NCORP could be met. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously, since I prodded it. Rosguill's assessment is spot on. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Onel5969 TT me 18:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible sourcing and no indication of significant coverage whatsoever. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:52, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funke Adepoju[edit]

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

Setting aside that the article as written is overly promotional, the subject just isn't quite there notability-wise. The sources currently provided, Onobello and BellaNaija, do not appear to be reliable (based on assessments in this discussion). The one other source is [13], which appears to essentially be a press release. I searched through several pages of Google search results, finding only mere mentions in reliable sources like The Nation Online, and routine/promotional coverage in borderline reliable sources like Pulse.ng. I have yet to see a single piece of significant coverage in a clearly reliable source. Does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically agree with the nom. None of the current sources is reliable, so what exists is not even a proper article but unsourced junk. – Ammarpad (talk) 00:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Prosperi[edit]

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

BLP is sourced to a single, three-sentence mention in a book published by "Evil Hat Productions." A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) finds no WP:RS. There is a non-RS book review [14] but this seems to be on an entirely different Prosperi and is irrelevant to establish WP:N in any case. Our policy on BLPs states that "human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." Currently 25% of this article talks about this unknown gentleman being laid-off from his job. To preserve the personal privacy of a non-notable individual who does not pass the GNG, this should be deleted. Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general I support Draftifying articles, however, our obligations to the personal privacy of BLPs, IMO, precludes draftify except under exceptional circumstances. Chetsford (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the ″About the author″ section at the back of the book, you will find that it is the same person. There's no clue to be had there where we could go to find this person's life and works independently and reliably documented in depth. There's a clue in the coyness of that section, moreover, that they will not be. And they are not, as far as I can determine. Original research that does not pass muster for Wikipedia (I looked xem up on LinkedIn.) leads me to understand that the first sentence of this article, written in the present tense, is utterly wrong. What we have is wrong, and a biography cannot be written in accordance with our content policies. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, I found the same LinkedIn page. If correct, this article seems to be a "creative" perspective of his actual vocation. This is definitely the problem in sourcing an entire BLP to a single fandom source. Frankly, Oracle Utilities Energy Information Platform Release Notes [15] from Oracle Corporation may have been more widely distributed than the works we list in this article, even if the subject isn't as scintillating as a monster manual. Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you think something is over the line, as in Currently 25% of this article talks about this unknown gentleman being laid-off from his job, then delete it. (I deleted it).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV, GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasons stated by Nom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:12, 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 per Coolabahapple's reasoning. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ione Taylor[edit]

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

She has had an accomplished career and won several awards, but this article simply repeats her personal CV and LinkedIn profile, and violates WP:NOTRESUME. Her awards are from industry groups with no outside media coverage, and all that can be found are WP:ROUTINE industry directory listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks notability and reads like a CV not an encyclopedia article and is there for a form of promotionalism. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Parts are copyvio, and the rest is boilerplate that makes no real claims of significance. XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic and looks like a resume. Highway 89 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I see that this article has been created by a brand new student editor (hi Briannaerika) for a geology unit, so this may explain why it "violates WP:NOTRESUME", "reads like a CV", and "Parts are copyvio"; also that the nominator acknowledges that Taylor "has had an accomplished career and won several awards", so with appropriate sources found she might meet WP:GNG; i suggest draftify so that the creator has the opportunity to work on it. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DXFL[edit]

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

Previously deleted CSD A7 (and, before that, as a hoax although that seems very dubious). I'm tempted to tag it CSD A7 again, but the comment about being the 'pioneer station' could be seen as a claim to notability. However, does not meet WP:ORGCRITE or WP:GNG. Very little coverage, and the only real significance is the attack on the station, but that alone hardly seems enough to establish notability especially given the paucity of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a hoax. It was an article written in 2014 that talked of events in 2015 in the past tense. Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, sorry. I was trying to work out how an article about a station that seems to exist could be a blatant hoax, but that makes sense. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems pretty unremarkable, A7 definitely fits this one. Almy (talk) 16:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viacheslav Georgievich Borshchev[edit]

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

Subject is a kickboxer who has not won any major title. Fails WP:NKICK and WP:NSPORT CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence he meets any of the notability criteria for kickboxers. I also couldn't find significant independent coverage that shows WP:GNG is met. Routine sports coverage/results are not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:14, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tsada Football Field[edit]

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

don't see how this possibly meets WP:NGEO or anything else, we can prove it exists (sort of) but it is not independently notable. Creator has contested prod, so left only with AFDing, no opposition to redirecting however I don't think it's all that likely of a search term. Praxidicae (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if CSD:A7 applied to places, I'd recommend this for that because it doesn't assert why this football field is important. As it stands, this article has no credible claim of significance anyway, and its lack of sources in a WP:BEFORE search lead me to believe this does not meet WP:GNG. Red Phoenix talk 14:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I proposed deletion but this was contested by the creator of the article. There are no reliable sources to show this location exists, let alone is notable. As I write this, all three supposed sources lead to user-generated content sites, with at least one sourcing its information from this Wikipedia article, and another which was authored by Timothy Glykis, the author of this article. A small football field is highly unlikely to be notable and it would definitely need published, independent sources to show that it is. I am all for including small locations in Wikipedia, but an individual football field is too small and unimportant to warrant inclusion. Railfan23 (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prince George's Community Federal Credit Union[edit]

Prince George's Community Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article that reads like a company press release or webpage. Absolutely no citations. Fails WP:GNG Iamorangelightning (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Iamorangelightning (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Iamorangelightning (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Iamorangelightning (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly not quite A7 material because it claims how many customers and assets, but still does not meet WP:GNG. A search turned up no reliable sources or indication why this local credit union is particularly significant, and the advertisement style reeks of WP:COI or possibly WP:PAID. Red Phoenix talk 14:45, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Mills (American Management Consultant)[edit]

Anthony Mills (American Management Consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article that currently reads like an autobio crossed with a LinkedIn page. Even with massive cleanup, however, there's no evidence that this individual would meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources are all primary, mainly social networks and personal sites, and I can't find a single decent secondary source from my WP:BEFORE, let alone the numerous, substantial, independent coverage needed. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This was originally a sandbox creation and submitted for review. I reviewed it and it had no merits then and it was denied publication to mainspace and speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising. This version is longer and better organised but has no more merit. Fails WP:GNG. Reads like a paid editing job and reeks of WP:COI.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 43,533 bytes of likely self-promotion (or paid editing) unsupported by any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletedeletedeletedelete. Massive promo piece and almost certainly UPE without any real claims (and what is there is greatly, uh, let's say "bolstered".) Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the nominator said. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a little research, I found the two books this individual authored / edited on Google Books (search "Collaborative Engineering and the Internet: Linking Product Development Partners via the Web" and "Applied Innovation Master Book" on https://books.google.com). It turns out the first book was pusblished by a well-known entity (SME International - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SME_(society)). Does that mean this individual meets the WP:GNG requirements for notability? Curious about that since WP:BEFORE Section D Point 1 states "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, etc.", and WP:BEFORE Section D Point 3 states "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." So I'm wondering if proper due diligence was done here prior to nominating. In particular, I am confused about the statement "I can't find a single decent secondary source from my WP:BEFORE" when this information was so easily available on Google Books. Yhannot (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear you are confused. To clarify, when I said "I can't find a single decent secondary source", I was referring to being unable to find decent secondary sources. The book existing on Google is not a secondary source. The publisher having a Wikipedia article is not a secondary source. So to put your mind at rest, yes proper due diligence was done and no, finding the book on google does not mean the individual meets the requirements for notability. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a TON of advertising, and now the creator is involved in a sockpuppet investigation. YIKES. Almy (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not the creator of this article, nor do I even know the creator of this article. I was simply asking an objective question about a process. Yhannot (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is debatable: like others cannot find much in the way of SIGCOV. Promotional: possible WP:PAID. Eagleash (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is almost entirely promotional with no real notability. Could even be speedied per CSD G11. Highway 89 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional with no real substance. — Mainly 20:18, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TravelLocal[edit]

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

Failing WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Sources are essentially from three categories: advertorials, list-type mentions/mentions in passing, or corporate business as usual (e.g. funding rounds). This is insufficient to establish notability for a company. Lacking substantial independent editorial coverage about the company. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:01, 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 merge to Buddleja davidii#Cultivation. Consensus is clearly in favour of removing the page, the only question is where to move its material. There are two plausible candidates and almost equal support and only a weak argument (the "crufty" point) that favours one of these over the other; thus going by that opinion but I stress that this AFD is not a bar to creating a cultivar list if consensus arises somewhere else to do so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddleja davidii 'Shapcott Lavender'[edit]

Buddleja davidii 'Shapcott Lavender' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If as little as is known about it as the article suggests, then it probably has not been discussed in multiple reliable sources and so we shouldn't have an article about it. Coming here rather than prodding it as I know little about biology and this may be inherently notable. Launchballer 12:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Launchballer 12:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources all refer to Buddleja davidii.--Launchballer 12:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the article itself say that's the same thing? Hugsyrup (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shapcott Lavender is a cultivar of Buddleja davidii, one of 180 according to the cultivation section of the species article. Species may be inherently notable but cultivars are not. Peter James (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my God, there are hundreds of them. Are any of them notable?--Launchballer 13:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some may be. Another cultivar was discussed in 2012 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddleja 'Flutterby' Lavender; the result was 'keep', but several editors mentioned possibility of merging to a list. Peter James (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Buddleja davidii#Cultivation or create Buddleja davidii cultivars for this article + some 10-50-100-? other cultivars of Buddleja davidii that aren't independently notable. There isn't much on this specific cultivar besides it existing. Wikipedia is not a seed catalog?Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Buddleja davidii are wonderful shrubs (insects, especially butterflies love them), and yes, there are lots of varieties but not all of them are wikinotable, the suggestion of a list article though admirable is veering into crufty territory, listing at Buddleja davidii#Cultivation (of notable ones only, not this one) is a sensible suggestion. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:02, 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable per the widespread nature of the hoax, per GNG. I find no consensus for a re-name, but that can take place in a separate discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Coates (longevity claimant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Coates (longevity claimant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person was briefly believed to have been a supercentenarian, and that turned out to be wrong. No other claim to notability, and no other coverage of his life, so no need for an article. — JFG talk 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the prior nomination for deletion, and I still see no significant coverage. Also, the article has not been expanded since then. That's at best a BLP1E/NOPAGE case. — JFG talk 11:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOPAGE, and WP:SUSTAINED. The experts say he was a fraud and there was very little reporting on him or anything to say about him in a wiki article except brief information on record possibilities if his already disproven age claim was true and how his claim was debunked. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you're invoking WP:BIO1E: 1) what is the event supposed to be in this case? The man's entire life? 2) Why aren't you proposing a redirect to the event as advised in WP:BIO1E if you think it applies? Bio1E is not, primarily, a delete rationale.
If you're invoking WP:SUSTAINED then why isn't years of coverage sufficient?
If you're invoking WP:NOPAGE, then what is the page you wish to redirect to and what is your rationale for doing so? FOARP (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The singular BIO1E event would be the controversy about Mr. Coates' age. The relevant NOPAGE target would be Longevity claims. I'm not invoking SUSTAINED, although I'll note that absolutely all coverage of this person was in the context of the age controversy, and one of the reasons for my nomination is that there is no significantly-covered information about his life besides the dispute over his age. — JFG talk 21:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Defining an unresolved factual dispute as an "event" is stretching the English language to breaking point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, WP:BIO1E is not a WP:DELREASON. It's a reason to redirect/rename/merge. It clearly states that that is what it is. It's entire purpose is to avoid WP:POVFORKs and duplication by ensuring that where someone is only notable for one event, we don't have both a biographical article on them and an article covering the event, with the default being coverage of the event. And are you really saying you'd be happy with a rename to William Coates longevity claim controversy? FOARP (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. The substantial coverage in reliable sources provided by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Coates (longevity claimant) in articles in United Press International, NBC News, and The Washington Post.
    2. Kitty, Alexandra (2005). Louv, Jason (ed.). Don't Believe It!: How Lies Becomes News. New York: Disinformation. ISBN 978-1-932857-06-1. Retrieved 2018-12-11.

      The book notes:

      William Coates was one such piece of living trivia: at 114 years of age, the Clinton, Maryland man was known around the country as being the oldest living man in the United States. It was an unofficial title he had held for the past several years, as was mentioned in the June 2, 1999 edition of the Washington Post

      [three-paragraph quote from the Washington Post]

      Sadly, Coates passed away in February 2004. A mention of his death was made in a February 25 Associated Press story disseminated by hundreds of media outlets:

      [five-paragraph quote from the Associated Press]

      The last sentence should have set off some sort of alarm bells for both reporters and news consumers. While it was not uncommon for those in the 1800s to not have a birth certificate, it certainly was a stretch to consider someone to be the country's eldest citizen in absence of one. By early March, it was revealed that a copy of a 1930 U.S. Census form showed that Coates was listed as being eighteen years old, making him 92, not 114, at the time of his death. Yet even then, some who knew Coates remained firm in their beliefs, as shown in the March 2, 2004 edition of the Maryland Gazette:

      [one-paragraph quote from the Gazette]

      It was noted in some articles that none of Coates' relatives maintained that he was 114 years old, either. [analysis about newspapers and newscasts running the story without independent verification]

    3. Getler, Michael (2004-03-07). "Good News and Sad News". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25.

      The article notes:

      When William Coates died on Feb. 24 at the Southern Maryland Hospital Center, the story made the front page of the Metro section the next day because, the story said, at age 114, he "was believed to be America's oldest man." The story, which was relatively brief, said Coates did not have a birth certificate, which would not have been uncommon for African Americans of his generation. But it quoted the director of a Maryland senior center who had done extensive research on county centenarians as saying Coates was born June 2, 1889. The Post had mentioned Coates before in the news section when he was honored at a 1999 event called the Celebration of Centenarians sponsored by Prince George's County and two other local agencies, and in three or four other stories over the past five years. He was also mentioned in 2002 by columnist Courtland Milloy, who added that other authorities were working to authenticate his age.

      After his death, The Post set out to write a fuller story. On March 2, a front-page Metro story reported that "in a final twist to a long life that is largely shrouded in questions, U.S. Census records indicate that Coates -- who has been celebrated for his supposed advanced age in news stories and public proclamations -- was no older than 92 when he died."

      This was a much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort, including references to earlier Post stories giving his age as 110 at the time. It pointed out that none of Coates's relatives had claimed he was 114 but said, rather, that they knew few details of his life. That second story appeared on the day Coates's relatives were attending his funeral at a Northeast Washington church.

    4. Schwartzman, Paul (2004-03-02). "Census Records Cast Doubt On Age of Pr. George's Man". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-12-25. Retrieved 2018-12-25.

      This is per Michael Getler, the "much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort".

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Coates to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The fact of whether or not Coates was actually a centenarian is irrelevant to notability. There is no notability guideline either way about that attribute: the relevant test here is WP:GNG.
  2. Even minimal WP:BEFORE should have shown JFG, the previous nomination. It's only the seventh item in the page history, so there's no need to even scroll to find it. The failure to notice the previous AFD looks like strong evidence of minimal scrutiny.
  3. In the previous discussion, I rapidly found multiple examples of significant coverage. The failure of JFG to conduct similar searches is further evidence of inadequate preparation for this AFD.
  4. Much more seriously, when JFG finally spotted the previous AFD, he posted I still see no significant coverage. That was only 5 minutes after the original nomination, which is completely insufficient time to fully read the the previous discussion, let alone evaluate the evidence. It's very clear that JFG simply dismissed the previous AFD without proper consideration, and that the comment I still see no significant coverage was a deceitful misrepresentation of JFG's failure to actually look for the evidence even when it involved no greater effort than reading the page in front of him. (I say "deceitful", because the only alternative explanation is that JFG is so spectacularly stupid that they didn't spot that a lengthy discussion of a long list of reliable sources is highly relevant. And I do not for moment believe that JFG is that stupid.)
  5. Even though the previous AFD closed only 6 months ago, JFG made no effort to notify the participants in the previous AFD. That was done the following day by Cunard. The lack of notifications is a form of WP:forum-shopping.
  6. This nomination arises out of campaign by WP:LONGEVITY to remove as much as possible of Wikipedia's coverage of longevity issues. This has involved a small clique of editors steamrollering their way through the topic as a sort of counterforce to the WP:WOP's spamming of Wikipedia. The problem is that neither of these sets of POV warriors have shown any respect for en.wp's core policies. Apart from a long series of AFDs which have been so very badly-prepared that they amount to systematic deception, the WP:LONGEVITY crew have also been trying to systematically abuse WP:BIO1E by redefining the fact of longevity as a single event. See WT:WikiProject_Longevity/Archive 2#BIO1E for their outraged reaction when I challenged it.
  7. It's unsurprising that the WP:LONGEVITY tag team was quick to respond to JFG's nomination. User:Newshunter12 was also the first to reply to the previous nomination, and has a solid track record of participation in the WP:LONGEVITY tag team of editors who co-ordinate their AFD nominations and vote as bloc.
I have a rarely seen such a sustained exercise in gaming the system. How long will it be before the WP:LONGEVITY crew of POV-warriors follow the WOP/GRG crew of POV-warriors down the path to Arbcom?
In the meantime, I hope that the closer of this discussion will cling fast to WP:NOTAVOTE, and not facilitate this tag-team's efforts at forum-shopping through shoddy notifications. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not voting, and never intended to. That said, this is hardly a vast right wing conspiracy; sending articles to AfD is not at all "gaming the system", and every commenter has entirely independent agency. Unlike the GRG lackeys, all the work at the new WikiProject is done on-wiki and not pulling random people from the 110 Club and Yahoo groups. And if the article subject is so notable, why did no one bother to add in all the amazing sources above? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A sadly predictable pile of pile of straw men from @The Blade of the Northern Lights. Here's a few of the straws:
  1. sending articles to AfD is not at all "gaming the system"
    When those AFDs are planned, co-ordinated, and tag-teamed on the basis of misrepresentations of policy,the system is very clearly being gamed
  2. Unlike the GRG lackeys
    Different tactics in your POV-pushing doesn't alter the fact the WP:LONGEVITY tag team is POV-pushing. When you eventually all end up at arbcom, good luck with he Unlike the GRG lackeys defence. You will need the luck.
  3. this is hardly a vast right wing conspiracy.
    Classic straw man. I never suggested it was right-wing or vast or a conspiracy. Just a tag team of partisan POV-pushers.
  4. And if the article subject is so notable, why did no one bother to add in all the amazing sources above?
    • Because the ratio of editors to articles is low and falling
    • Notable is a property of the topic, not of the state of the article
TBOTNL has created some handy evidence there for Arbcom, but it doesn't add anything to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about chilling a discussion. Most of this doesn't belong here, so I won't clutter this AfD, but I'll say this; I highly doubt ArbCom will want any involvement at this point, what with the lack of prior DR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also realize that, being from opposite sides of the pond, "vast right wing conspiracy" is a bit of a hyperbolic joke in American English. It was an effort at levity, not accusation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sigh, same arguments I made before. Notable hoaxes are notable subjects for an article. This guy's longevity claim being false is not a good reason for deletion. Can we just stop with this campaign on longevity articles? A notable subject is a notable subject, regardless of whether their claim is true or not. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The previous nomination was posted seven months and one week ago and, in closing it as "no consensus", Michig noted that "another relist doesn't seem likely to change that". As before, the strong and convincing arguments by BrownHairedGirl and Cunard, in particular, confirm that subject's media coverage, such as it was, was nevertheless sufficient to firmly mark his entry as "keep". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of whether or not his claim was true. The sourcing on the article isn't great but a quick Google search seems to indicate he received coverage from several independent sources. Highway 89 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom was fair game as the old AfD was closed as no consensus, but Cunard's and BHG's points in defense of retention are well made, and I tend to concur with the remarks on the state of WP:LONGEVITY, of which I am a dissenting semi-participant. At any rate, SIGCOV is present and the article should be kept. schetm (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither here nor there, but I've certainly appreciated your input there. Even when we disagree you do argue your points well, and based on your work I've definitely come around to a different view on a few articles (e.g. Swami Kalyandev, with a bit of distance from that discussion, was a misfire from me). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per BrownHairedGirl. 45.228.209.44 (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has enough quality references to meet at least a technical pass of WP:GNG (I added two more from the Washington Post, and a lesser mention from the Wall Street Journal). There are also several books that mention the hoax (which I think it was). A hoax that lasted many years (the Washington Post first did an article in 1999 with follow-ups in 2002, and 2004), cannot really be an "event". I think the case would be interesting to a reader wanting to know the facts of what actually happened here. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to highlight this: even if this hoax were thought to be a single event, the solution per WP:BIO1E would be to rename/redirect/merge to the article covering the event (so it would become William Coates longevity hoax or whatever). WP:BIO1E is not, and was never intended to be, a stand-alone WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good point FOARP, and even though the WP:BIO1E does say The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, given that the "person" is such a central part of the focus (i.e. mentioned in almost every ref and line), I don't see an imperative to need to rename the article to the "event". Britishfinance (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. Drunk in Paris (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I very much think that it would be more advisable to keep this article, as it is certainly an oddly well reported incidence! StewBrewer (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm sad to see you amalgamate this nomination with several others, just because you have a perception that the WP:LONGEVITY project is some sort of WP:CABAL. In fact, there are significant differences of opinion among "regulars" at that project, and I for one look at each article and each AfD nomination independently. Obviously, the longevity area needed a lot of cleanup work to bring it in line with current Wikipedian standards of coverage. After about a year of diligent work and numerous discussions, where hundreds of editors made their voices heard, we are getting to a rather stable state of affairs, and most of the longstanding disputes in this topic area have been settled by RfC. There is still work to do, and your input is naturally welcome.
On this particular nomination:
  • I truly was not aware of the previous AfD, to which I had not participated; I noticed it after my new nomination was saved by Twinkle's XfD tool, and it turned out to be a re-nomination.
  • I looked at the arguments presented in the first AfD, and indeed 5 minutes were enough to ascertain that none of the sources presented six months ago in support of keeping the article had made their way into the text. I do consider AfDs as an important tool to raise awareness about bad articles, and a catalyst to improve them when possible; I rejoice when an article is saved by an AfD, even when I initially support deletion. I did not see any improvement on this article, and from the scant details available in RS, I do not see how it could be improved beyond rehashing the aforementioned age controversy.
  • While there was indeed enough RS coverage of this age dispute, the central subject matter (the dispute, not the person) would be better handled at Longevity claims, where it could be compared to similar historical cases of confusion, misunderstanding, lack of records, or deceitful claims.
  • Finally, our encyclopedia is NOT supposed to repeat everything that was ever printed in newspapers, especially not things that are unlikely to enhance the "sum of human knowledge" over time. As I wrote when opening this AfD, there is only one notable thing about Mr. Coates: This person was briefly believed to have been a supercentenarian, and that turned out to be wrong. That's the "one event" in the WP:BIO1E argument. We would not reprint a Coates story that happened in 1850, although I'm sure newspapers of the day did exhibit similar examples. This factoid was only introduced into Wikipedia because it was recently in the news.
In short, I stand firmly by this second nomination. — JFG talk 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG, when you're in a hole it's better to stop digging. But since you are digging, here goes:
  • The previous AFD was linked in the edit summary of the 6th item from the top of the history before you made this nomination. If you didn't spot it, that looks like pretty good evidence that you didn't open the page history before nomination. That's a basic WP:BEFORE failure.
  • your 5-min assessment of the first AFD was plain wrong:
    1. The question of whether the sources mentioned in the previous AFD had made their way into the article is irrelevant. Notability is a property of the topic, not of the article
    2. I do consider AfDs as an important tool to raise awareness about bad articles. Please read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
  • You double down again on the fact that the claim appears to be wrong. But again, the veracity or otherwise of the claim forms no part of of the notability policy. If you disagree, please point me towards
  • I note the lack of any regret that when you became aware of the prev AFD, you made no effort to notify its participants. That makes it hard to give any credence to your claims that you weren't forum-shopping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption of bad faith is noted, and unfortunate. Regarding notability, all I'm saying is that only the age dispute was notable, however fleetingly. That's not an article about Mr. Coates, it's an article about an error in reporting who was the oldest U.S. man in 2004. Look at the state of the article when it was created at the time this story emerged.[16] I said and I repeat that this recentist anecdote is not encyclopedic. I understand that you may disagree. — JFG talk 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion about alleged hacking
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
@JFG @The Blade of the Northern Lights I wouldn't waste your time trying to "discuss" with BHG. Do you remember last year when she came after me with the same complaints and accused me of being part of an anti-old people conspiracy and of trying to hack her account? Not a pleasant or productive use of time. She also hounded Legacypac until he exploded at her (I am sincerely sorry you got cursed at - I know how unpleasant that can be) and got indefed. It's best to just ignore trolls. And no BHG, before you complain this is further evidence of a conspiracy among editors, I'm just trying to help fellow editors use their time and patience wisely. The only conspiracy in the Longevity area is the wave of harassment and death threats editors in this topic area such as me, Blade, and more have gotten for many months. You also seem quick to criticize, BrownHairedGirl, but outside of AfD, what contributions to SC longevity articles have you been making in the past year? The above two editors and I have all made quite a few. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, @Newshunter12.
  1. I did not accuse you of trying to hack my account. That is a lie you have made before. Please stop telling lies.
  2. I did not "hound" Legacypac. That's a malicious allegation.
  3. Your contributions to AFDs and CFDs on Longevity topics were shockingly fact-averse, and esp a CFD you displayed overt hostility to retaining proper categorisation of the topics concerned.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl(talk) Already not following my own advice...
  1. While it's true you said it in such a way as to maintain plausible deniability, the implication was clear that you were saying you thought I tried to hack your account and another editor thereafter repeated on EENG's talk page that allegation against me.
  2. I did not say you did anything wrong in regards to Legacypac, but it's my understanding you both clashed repeatedly for months before he was indefed. Is that correct? It seems fair to call that hounding, whether it be righteous corrections on your part or not.
  3. At the CFDs in question, I was new to that, and after you explained why my votes were misguided and counter-productive to the encyclopedia, I apologized to you and changed them all, and made an effort to get on with you. Later, my good will withered when you repeatedly accused me and others of bad faith, conspiracies, hacking, and your excessive levels of pinging and threats that we will all get banned. Funny you always leave the positive part out of the CFD story and how it was I who introduced you to WP:LONGEVITY in that conversation!
  4. You conveniently don't want to talk about the fact that I and others do a lot for SC longevity pages outside of AfD, but you don't.
  5. You don't seem to want to edit constructively with me - I expressed sympathy with you over the verbal abuse you suffered, but not a peep from you over the verbal, sexual, and death threats directed at me by people who want me off Wikipedia and the topic of longevity. I wish we could get past these disagreements, but that doesn't appear to be what you want.
--Newshunter12 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Newshunter.
At 02:23 you wrote She also hounded Legacypac. Then at 03:25 you wrote I did not say you did anything wrong in regards to Legacypac.
Make up your mind.
As to the hacking thing, I don't recall where the thread was now, but I recall very clearly what happened. Someone, possibly you, mentioned the possibility that my account had been hacked. I responded my noting truthfully that i had just received the first ever notice of an attempted hack of my account, and that the coincidence of the suggestion and the actual attempt was very odd.
You are now trying to cast this as if i had popped up out of nowhere and started pointing a finger at you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking the latter quote out of context but I agree, I wasn't trying to send friendly vibes. As far as the hacking stuff goes, that discussion was actually in the first AfD for this very article. You said: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it. You wrote that after I made a sarcastic quip about your account being hacked as the source of some stuff you wrote. The same day another editor wrote here: Newshunter12 probably tried hack her account recently.
This renewed discussion on an AfD for the same article is another curious coincidence. It really serves to put what happened in perspective. You say you didn't mean to imply I was involved, so I accept you at your word. I am sorry BrownHairedGirl for believing and repeating now and last year that you made that allegation against me. But can you please see from my perspective how your statement could be interpreted and came out of nowhere to me after a little joke and then someone else started repeating what I felt to be this false claim against me? Newshunter12 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12, what I actually wrote about hacking is visible in this diff.[17] You have made several summaries of what I wrote which do not accurately represent my words, so I will withdraw from this discussion with you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl What I quoted is no different then what you wrote about hacking in that dif, which you only found because of me, yet your acting like I'm engaged in some conspiracy against you. It's word for word the same - I even carried over your italicized attempt. You're just trolling here, but you are more then welcome to find someone else to harass. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newshunter12, I am sorry, but your comments quote accurately, but then repeatedly attribute to me words and meanings which are crucially different to what I actually said.
I have not alleged that you are part of any conspiracy against me, and I am not "harassing you". I replied to comments you made here, and have already said that I want to withdraw from dialogue with you. Please just disengage, and drop these bogus allegations of harassment. If you don't drop them, I will take them to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A notification this morning: "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password."
Only the second time ever. And both occasions came straight after after a discussion with the same editor about the same type of topic. Obviously a pure coincidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl I don't know anything about that. I thought you wanted this discussion to be over with? Recently, I have been getting harassed, stalked on wiki, sent death threats (you're an admin, so I believe you can read the blocked comments on my talk page), and suffered attempts to get me blocked (ex. someone recently created a sockpuppet account named Newshunter14 and then threatened another editor I was discussing with on a talk page). Given all that's happened to me lately on wiki, it's far from inconceivable that someone read this exchange and is screwing with you hoping I get the blame and am blocked. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your allegations on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. 198.8.81.74 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck comment from now banned (for two years) troll. Thank you for outing yourself. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. However, the WP:CABAL impression is pretty easy to understand given the present state of the WP:LONGEVITY talk page. It's overwhelmingly given over to article deletion, merging, and reduction in lists. Then there's the repetition of talking points already dismissed by consensus (e.g., WP:BIO1E can apply to someone's entire life and is a valid WP:DELREASON, suspicious longevity claims which are nevertheless supported by WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS can be deleted) which smells of a local consensus being maintained even after exposure to the wider community has dismissed it. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn McNeil[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 1 game in the AHL and 95 games in the DEL, 104 games short of meeting #2. Playing in ECHL and the 2nd Bundesliga/DEL 2 only achieves notability for preeminent honours (#3) but the subject does not have any. The SPHL isn't listed for any criteria so I believe being a First All-Star in that league does not achieve notability, but if I am wrong you know what to do. Tay87 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 08:38, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Ingram (writer/actor)[edit]

William Ingram (writer/actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the significance roles he has given, it fails the notability guideline due to lack of lead roles. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NACTOR doesn't call for leading roles, simply "significant roles", and his roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall accomplish that. In addition, his writing accomplishments also meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 TT me 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think writing The District Nurse carries him over the bar at WP:AUTHOR. But there is other notable work, only time and good searches are needed. searches are difficult because William Ingram is a very common name. Searching "william Ingram" + BBC, I find some, brief RS stuff like: (We're talking Welsh, my boyo, and I don't mean Irvine, Mourby, Adrian. New Statesman; London Vol. 9, Iss. 411, (Jul 12, 1996): 42. When the Sherman Theatre Company staged The Government Inspector William Ingram rewrote it for a valleys setting."), Searching William + Ingram + Playwright did better. (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard The Guardian (1959-2003); Apr 10, 1963; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 9; "The Sandcastle last night, ATV production adapted by William Ingram..." adaptation of a novel.); a brief review: (the week's radio reviewed by GILLIAN REYNOLDS, Reynolds, Gillian. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]19 Dec 1970: 6. "Stop Off by William Ingram had the fashionable Freeid Jones as a kind of mystical trmp who tries in vain...); a long review: (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 Apr 1963: 9. " actually, I'll just add the longer review to the page. I also get hundreds of schedule pages from seemingly every British newspapers with entries like ("Afternoon Theatre, Darts With the Boys," by William Ingram, 4:35). A prolific writer of material for TV, some of which is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept, needs to be renamed to William Ingram (writer). We don't use double disambiguation and this seems to have been his primary claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. Significant roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall CharlenePho (talk) 10:29, 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. Consensus seems to be that notability criteria are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Envision (software)[edit]

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

Does not attempt to establish why the subject is important. Does not satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Its 3 sources do not classify as reliable, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I tried moving it to draft so it could be worked on but the author soon moved it back to article space. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Everyday I learn something new on Wikipedia, today I learned that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.", I started writing this article while considering that it's subject is notable based on these master thesis, I'm sorry Charmk (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as a premature AfD, without prejudice to re-opening it in the future.
I'd be happy to see academic theses used as sources (after all, look at REST and CSS) provided that they are both credible as sources (i.e. competent work from a competent establishment, with appropriate levels of supervision and peer review) and also that they have something towards "significant scholarly influence". Now I don't require them to be Einstein's 1905 papers. I don't even need them to meet the influencing standards of REST or CSS. They should be adequate to source and WP:Verify what they're being used to cite, we don't need anything more than that.
They're also an irrelevance. The problems with this article are because it fails CSD §A7 – there is no article here. There is nothing in this article of any encyclopedic significance. There is no content, just a bullet-point list which is so trivial that it looks like marketing copy from a 1980s Byte article. We learn nothing about Envision, we learn nothing as to why yet another IDE is worth recording, why Envision was created, what it might do beyond that which every IDE does. We don't even have these five sources (which ought to add up to something!) used here, they're just listed without inline citations. The article is empty and worthless.
That said, AfDing an article that was created from scratch less than an hour ago is not good practice for AfDing. There is no need for that (we have to have some patience!) and if an article was so bad that it needed to be deleted for hygiene reasons, we have CSD for that. This could, and should, have been created differently. Create it as a draft (in draftspace, userspace, offline or whatever) and only move it to mainspace when it can at least pass CSD §A7. Or else don't AfD it after an hour, watch it and give it a few days to see if the draft at least gets finished, then judge. As such, this AfD should be closed.
Maybe drafting this would be best. Or at least finish it (AfD will do nothing for some days, so there's a chance). The article as is shouldn't be here in a week (I'll CSD it myself). It needs to be either better, or gone, or out of mainspace until it is. But AfDs after an hour are just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Thanks I will take on board what you're saying about haste. FYI, my guide to this process is the NPP flowchart, which does not mention waiting, and says to use A7 only in the case of "Is the article a person, individual animal, non-educational organisation, or organised event?", and which thus led me to AfD; though I did first try to give it a chance by draftifying. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the useful information Charmk (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No change after a week, so delete Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment'. I do not think draftifying will help, as there does seem to be enough for an article. we need material from other than the author of the program. Master's theses, fwiw, are a very different thing from Ph.D theses--even from a school as important as ETH-. They usually amount to expanded class projects. But A7 would not apply, neither to the draft or the article. A7 includes organizations, but not products, or software. There have been various discussions of this over the years, and the reason remains: this is something that no single admin should attempt to judge.That's why we're here at afd DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A masters thesis doesn't establish notability. While the association with a masters program perhaps lends some clout, unless the thesis itself has significant scholarly influence, then it's nothing more than your garden variety primary source without notable coverage. (And is therefore inappropriate for inclusion.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 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 keep. Definite consensus to 'keep'in some form. The present title is clearly sub-optimum and I strongly recommend a 'move' discussion, as a post-AfD action, to Michael Patnam . Just Chilling (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael's Church, Michael Patnam[edit]

St Michael's Church, Michael Patnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the WP:GNG, is a copy vio [18], and is possibly a web host due to the user not having any edits outside of this page. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no justification for TNT is provided. wp:TNT is an essay basically calling for violation of Wikipedia policy, in that Bearian is implicitly acknowledging validity of the topic, and yet calling for deletion of edit history for no reason presenting, causing grief unnecessarily and violating our contract about preserving recognition for contributors under our license. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more explanations why this is bad. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was "Keep", then "Comment", then back). It does seem misplaced, and it would better be moved to Michael Patnam or MichaelPatnam (both currently redlinks). The church can be covered in an article about the village, and villages are basically notable as populated places. While it doesn't seem right to present/cover the village in article titled to be about the church. We are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion, and Keeping this with suggestion/admonition to Move it complies with wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (was "Delete"). I first voted "Keep". However I did not first notice the assertion of copyvio, and the link to this Earwig comparison result and I have not been aware of that Earwig tool. wp:TNTTNT does acknowledge that deletion of articles that are nearly all copyvios is an exception that has to be allowed. User:AmericanAir88, for an article that is a complete copyvio, it is not necessary to have an AFD. You should PROD it or speedy delete it. So now I think this should be deleted or speedy deleted. --Doncram (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cancel my previous "delete" vote based on observation of User:Cwmhiraeth that dating suggests the blog is a copy of Wikpedia, not the other way around. --Doncram (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Michael Patnam - I don't think this is a copyvio because the content that is duplicated in the blog was included in the article earlier than the 22 August 2016 date of the blog. I could find no other mentions of the village online, but as a populated place it meets WP:GEOLAND. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "Move" vote should be interpreted as "Keep" but with recommendation the article should probably be moved to a specific target or a wp:RM should take place. It is fine for an AFD result to require some implementation steps. "Move" is not an AFD outcome recognized by wp:AFDSTATS. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although the article seems to be mainly about the village, Michael Pat(ta)nam actually appears to be a district of Vempathur as opposed to a village in its own right, unless the two have spread to merge with each other. Neither have articles as yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current article states that the district level of Michael Patnam is a Panchayati raj. Vempathur (currently a redlink), might be the next higher level? It would be okay to keep this but move/merge it to cover the higher level instead/also. This decision can be considered at the Talk page and/or left to informed editors to implement as they see fit.--Doncram (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname and repurpose as an article on the village. We cannot have an article on a NN local before we have one on the place where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 20 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. The one 'keep' !vote was dependent on more sources being fond that have not been produced. Just Chilling (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. Nathan Toomey[edit]

P. Nathan Toomey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP on a person who once got third-place in a roleplaying game contest. BLP has a four sentence mention in one book published by "Evil Hat Productions" [19]. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com) fails to find any further references. There is a presumption of privacy for obviously not notable individuals of which this is one; for the benefit of both the subject and WP, this should be deleted. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is not notable. Willbb234 (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise move to draft so that it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I'm inclined to support Draftify, however, I think this should be avoided in BLPs except in exceptional circumstances due to our policy that "human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". Chetsford (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 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 keep. The page has been improved since nomination and I find the argument that it now meets WP:NAUTHOR persuasive. Just Chilling (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Heldmann[edit]

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

Of the five references provided in this article, three are to Heldmann’s own work. The one in the LA Times I can’t access and the last is a passing mention. I can’t find any other references. My conclusion is that while some of the author’s books are possibly notable, he himself isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Mccapra, As you say, his books are notable and sources exist from which the page can be improved. However, you appear to misunderstand WP:CREATIVE, with, writers, composers, painters and other CREATIVE types, we do not require that anything at all is known about the creator, only that the work is notable. We have numerous pages about anonymous authors, sculptors, poets... Especially when, as here, the writer is notable for a series of books on a topic, it is COMMON to have a BIO page sourced to articles and reviews about the books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Nom states, page needs improvement. However, I ran a WP:BEFORE and in a proquest news archive search I can see book reviews and coverage going back to the publication of his first book in the 1990s. Added two book reviews and a NYTimes article stating that one of his books sold 300,000 copied. This page just needs an editor to put the work in, but it may require access to news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks but I still don’t think this passes WP:ANYBIO. The NYT source is a passing reference consisting of one sentence. The CNN source is likewise a passing ref consisting of a one-sentence quote. The last two refs you’ve added don’t have links so I can’t see them, but suspiciously they have identical titles. When I search for that title I turn up a third piece in the NY Daily News also headed “Want to be your own contractor? First read this“. From which I conclude this is most likely just a recycling of launch PR. My conclusion is still that while some of his books may be notable, he isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that they are signed reviews by different journalists, both apparaently using an obvious play on world of the book title. I used a Paywalled Proquest newspaper search, therefore, no links.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 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 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books widely discussed, one sold over 300,00o copies. some book reviews, but mostly discussion of the books, interviews, feature coverage. He was a be-your-own contractor guru. But editors without access to paywalled news archives will have trouble seeing the coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Prolific author who meets WP:SIGCOV Los Angeles Times. E.M.Gregory did some good work adding references. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR. I have added a couple more reviews of two of his other titles, in addition to the reviews that E.M.Gregory added the one that has been in print so long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:19, 23 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein talk 13:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Lawn Resort[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lake Lawn Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. The 2005 AfD closed as keep although notability was never shown. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found one other substantial book reference, but apart from that no reliable independent sources.
    • Patricia Ruth-Marsicano (2014). Forgotten Delavan. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 9–. ISBN 978-1-4671-1280-2. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Books link to the "Forgotten Delavan" book referenced above. HighKing++ 17:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See below. Almy (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The "Forgotten Delavan" book reference above and a book entitled "Lake Lawn" by Ellen Baker Bell. Arcadia Publishing, ISBN: 978-0-7385-6027-4. Topic passed GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 17:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be willing to withdraw this AfD if @Almy: changes their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done that Almy (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 20 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 Arduin. I see no valid 'keep' argument but equally the consensus is to retain key material in some form. There is one source that has been identified and this would support a minimal merge. Just Chilling (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grimoire Games[edit]

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

Article on a profitmaking corporation has had no sources for the preceding 13 years. A standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, JSTOR, Google News, Google Books) finds four reviews of specific products on blogs and nothing else. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not totally surprising that a company that seems to have stopped trading in 1981 wouldn't have much about them online, and it may be that there are better offline sources, but I agree with the nominator that I can't find anything to hang notability on. That said, I'd argue in this case for a redirect to Arduin as a good WP:ATD and a potentially useful redirect, without prejudice to recreating the independent article in future if any decent sources can be found. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sold on the argument that long-defunct companies don't have online sources as notable defunct companies tend to continue to generate contemporary coverage if they were notable during the era when they were in business (e.g. Aeroamerica, defunct in 1982; Dutch East India Company, defunct in 1799). Plus, newspapers.com indexes 12,100 newspapers from a pre-online era and the subject appeared nowhere in any of them. That said, while Arduin may itself be a reasonable target for deletion, I don't in principal have an issue with turning this into a redirect there instead of deleting totally. Chetsford (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Arduin as per User:Hugsyrup – I found a book source that discussed the company in detail, so that is a start, and I will see what else can be found. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arduin and redirect - this is a pretty clear case where the product and its authors are notable, but the company probably is not based on the sources to date. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 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. Opinion in this one seems to be split down the middle and I find all arguments presented reasonable. The closest thing to a consensus is that the sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but since there seem to be people willing to try fleshing the article out, let's leave it here and try again in a while if nothing comes of that. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attain (consulting firm)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Sources are all highly specialised (WP:AUD) and so do not confer notability. It has not attracted any mainstream coverage. Looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Went looking, found a lot of DC centric coverage, and there seems to be enough notable contract issues that tie to other organizations, I'd like to build it out. Proteinlover (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we've had five days to save it, and all I see are local or insider coverage, duplicate citations, and a Bloomberg listing. That does not meet significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found some new sources, that are more regional/national. I takes Bearian's point, although, it's always a pain with businesses b/c their aren't many editors to help, and I do think it's better than where it started. Proteinlover (talk) 17:46, 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 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements (dependent coverage) and they fail WP:ORGIND. Others are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page has plenty of sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV including articles in reputable Washington D.C. media outlets. Mememento (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Except none meet WP:ORGIND. If you think they do, put a link here so we can take a look... HighKing++ 11:49, 16 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) 01:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Beltway bandits; so mostly regional coverage, but the negatives on their gov't contracts seem like they need a bit of building out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakerheadguy (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was asked to comment. It has a major role in work for multiple agencies of the US government--it is every bit as essential to have articles on firms like this as it is to the official government departments. I added the appropriate links. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: That's a rationale that doesn't seem to have any basis in policy. Either there are sources to justify notability or there aren't. Who the company's clients are has no bearing. SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The most fundament of all policies is that we are an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should contain material that people might reasonably look for in an encyclopedia. The relevant specific policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The notability guideline is one way of showing that, and the usual way, but it's not the only way. Size or dominance, though not a written guideline, has been accepted for organizations in many but of course not all AfDs. WP:N is not policy, and many efforts to elevate it to that status have failed, because we need thef flexibility. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and that's why we have *guidelines* to assist every editor in evaluating notability of various topics. Nowhere in WP:NCORP (the relevant guidelines for organizations/companies) does it even mention that "size or dominance" should even be considered as a criteria. The first line of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE refers editors to the WP:N guideline so guidelines are important - just that they don't trump policy. I'm afraid I do not understand how you are applying policy to support your !vote in response to a question on sources. The policy states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which could be interpreted as a direct contradiction of your position. From the same policy, we also have WP:NOTYELLOW which points out that articles are not "simple listings". Anyway DGG, we have disagreed in the past but I can normally understand (and even eventually agree with) the (very good) points you make in relation to scarcity of sources due to the age of some companies, the difficulty of sourcing sources that may exist solely in print or in other languages/countries, etc. I'm just not convinced in the slightest by the argument you've made here. HighKing++ 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume I was mentioned by name because a further comment was wanted.
Looking around WP as new articles come in, I notice we have articles on all significant government departments and military units, even though 90% of the time we have only reliable, but not independent sources. This is because we need to give people the information to put world events in context, by providing plain description of the basic background. Companies such as this, doings what they ado,are essentially ousourced government departments. If you really don't understand their importance in the world, you need to do some reading elsewhere than on WP. Generally, we have trouble covering them, because of the lake of even basic reliable sourcing. When we can document them, even to the extent that this article does, we should.
Since we make the rules, we say how they are applied. I -- or anyone experienced here -- can take the detailed wording of policy & guidelines and and, for most articles, argue for keep or delete, interpreting the wording to get the conclusion I want. It's a game, rather like college debating. WP has enough divergent rules to make it a complex game, and there are many people here who see these afd discussions as a good place to play it. I spent two years learning how to do it, and after that, got bored with it. Since we can find rules to make a decision on the intuitive basis of what we think WP should be like, that's what I directly aruge for.
I started here as an inclusionist, and with the rise of promotionalism, switched to being deletionist in many fields, as the best way to keep out advertising because for promotionalism is more apt to be present for the less notable subjects. It's no longer necessary to do it this indirect way, because we have advanced to the stage of recognizing promotionalism for what it is, and directly removing it. I think the arguement for deleting an article has to show why it would actually harm WP to have it. Including advertising absolutely harms the encyclopedia , because if we not NPOV, we're not an encyclopedia in the first place. Including relatively minor material does not harm, because an encyclopedia can be of wider or narrower coverage and still be a good encyclopedia. Including completely trivial material however does, for it gives an impression that we're not serious. If you think this organization is trivial, deletion would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation and I believe I understand your position. I would argue that if I (and other editors) were to adopt your position, we would end up arguing over which companies are "essentially outsourced government departments" and which ones are merely promoting themselves as such and (over time) probably end up with something very close to our current guidelines. Apologies - I should probably have asked at your Talk page rather than here but thank you again for responding in detail. HighKing++ 18:09, 22 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 per WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICN GPS[edit]

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

Acting as a sub page of Navman for a series of navigators marketed in the early noughties. Not significantly notable in its own right, majority of usable info can be used on parent page. Page appears to be more of an advert on how to modify such a system. Nightfury 14:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Navman - none of the content in the article is sourced, so we can't just merge it, unless someone is willing to source the non-prmotional stuff in the article. --MrClog (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 8 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) 01:10, 16 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations[edit]

List of U.S. DoD aircraft designations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Difficult to read and unreferenced table of US aircraft with their designations. If anything, this could be redirected to another page discussing US aircraft designations, like United States Department of Defense aerospace vehicle designation, but I think a delete is the best option here. As it exists, this doesn't really qualify as a "list", but as an underexplained table. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid list article with links to many different articles. Its set up in a way that those looking for the information can easily sort through it. Dream Focus 05:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. I'm fairly sure that this passes WP:LISTN and so the issue is just one of implementation and improvement. Deletion would not be helpful for this. It takes a lot of time and effort to build a table like this and it's discouraging to have such work permeptorily swept aside and made inaccessible. See WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article was created in 2006 and its creator has been around for at least 13 years. There are no newcomers being bitten, here. Uncle G (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BITE says "Remember: ... and in some ways ... even the most experienced among us are still newcomers." Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly move to Table of ..xxx per DreamFocus and Andrew D. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. DoD aircraft designations (including the pre/post 1962 change) are very much discussed as a set by a multitude of RSes (and translation between one set of designations and another is a rather significant issue). I agree the current list is a tad unreadable and formatting could be improved - but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons everyone else has already said. Almy (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Icewhiz and Almy. Page had clearly established notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the above, but propose maybe a rename to "U.S. DoD aircraft designations" or "Table of U.S. DoD aircraft designations" AmericanAir88(talk) 23:44, 22 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement[edit]

Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor political party. G11 and G12'd in the past. No significant coverage other than its founding. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 20:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what do you expect a two month old crowdfunded political party to do? they already explained in why they wont run for elections [1][2][3][4]
I do not know why you have nominated the page for deletion, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement @Kautilya3: concurs. Mhveinvp (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ashiqsrinagar, Peerzada (2019-05-07). "Low turnout in Anantnag LS constituency: Political parties call for "introspection"". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  2. ^ "Ex-babu, former engineer forge new front in run-up to Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  3. ^ Observer, Kashmir News (2019-03-23). "Shah Faesal's party to stay away from LS polls". The Kashmir Pulse. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
  4. ^ "PUF united voice of J&K people: Shah Faesal". Greater Kashmir. 2019-06-23. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

References

  1. ^ New Front, Old Frontier, Kashmir Life, 26 June 2019.
  2. ^ Hakeem Irfan Rashid, People's United Front: Another agenda and another alliance in Kashmir, Economic Times, 19 June 2019.
  • Comment: Mhveinvp Kautilya3 The issue is that in the provided sources, which are all routine coverage, the party is only subject to passing mentions in the articles listed, and not even mentioned directly in a few of the sources. If it's a recently started party, as you claim, then perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)
    • The two sources I have provided above do represent significant coverage as needed for WP:GNG. It is clear that this party represents a significant development in Jammu and Kashmir as practically every national newspaper has covered them. Some of the press has also carried out detailed analyses of their agenda.[1][2] The party is set to contest the next Assembly elections and frankly it is silly to quibble over whether its page should exist or not. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Analysis of Vision Document – Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement, Epilogue, 19 March 2019.
  2. ^ PUF’s DNA, Read The 45 Point CMP, Kashmir Life, 18 June 2019.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (WP:INDIA contributor here). Non notable political party that has not won any elections and no indication why it is notable. Notablity is WP:NOTINHERITED. Whatever coverage this party is getting is dependent coverage based on its founder. This includes all the links above and those on the article. This dependent coverage cannot be used to claim notability. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to this basic criteria. I would like to thank User:Sandstein for relisting this discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:39, 8 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) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's not notable political party and just two month old party which didn't won any election yet. Not given enough coverage by reliable and major sources to meet WP:Notability criteria. If this political party will play significant role in politics of India and in upcoming elections then it should be added. There is no deadline. --Harshil169 (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lots of coverage and I entirely disagree with DBX on his assessment of INHERITED. ∯WBGconverse 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked on your link above and randomly chose this 4th link and this is how the article starts "Former bureaucrat Shah Faesal’s J&K People’s Movement and... this is a text book example of INHERITED coverage. And lots of inherited coverage does NOT indicate notability.--DBigXrayᗙ 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone says SRK’s Red chillies. But Red chillies is notable. 106.66.180.36 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OSE--DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon for a political party to be notable enough to pass GNG. Delete without any apprehension for recreation in next few years if it becomes worthwhile by then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_16&oldid=1142613935"