Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 25

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.

Seatalk

Seatalk (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 is basically just a product listing, and if you filter out all the content related to the Seattle Seahawks, there's basically nothing to write anything more than a product listing with. Even looking at books, it all seems to be specs and instructions for boaters. I would normally say that it should be redirected to Raymarine Marine Electronics, but that "article" itself is in terrible shape, and I'm not sure there's a compelling reason to prefer Raymarine over the Seahawks. GMG^talk 12:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 14:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Per nom. Article doesn't have any sources, nor does the subject seem to be notable. –
  Talk 00:39, 26 October 2017 (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.

Kosar Buriro

Kosar Buriro (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 in-depth coverage in

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 21 October 2017 (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. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Locked Door (2012 film)

The Locked Door (2012 film) (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)

Not

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ten seconds on Google turns up these:

• http://www.chinesefilms.cn/1/2012/03/07/141s7899_2.htm
• http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-25/17113640392.shtml
• http://ent.sina.com.cn/m/c/2012-05-21/02103635153.shtml

Likely there are more Chinese language sources. I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign language films, so I'll leave that decision to others. Deli nk (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia's notability standards for foreign-language films are exactly the same as for English-language films. They also do not discriminate according to the language of sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll back what 86 says. I'll leave it to others to judge the Chinese language sources, machine translation didn't help me enough. But the first linked, not an independent reliable source. It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Filmbiz.asia is the official site of Film Business Asia. Where is your proof that "It's an organization that was created to promote Chinese films to the outside world", and even if it is, why isn't it an independent reliable source if it has no connection to the film? Timmyshin (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• To quote their about page "our aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" [10]. Please take some time to understand what a independent reliable source actually is. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone whose "aim is to introduce exceptional domestically produced films to the outside world" could also be a reliable source that is independent of those films. The two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Deli nk (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is clear
  to improve it. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable film which falls short of
  WP:NFILM.–Celestina007 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Not notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2017 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Single-stream technology

Single-stream technology (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)

The article is by a

• Delete A search shows that there are a lot of things possessing the attribute of "single-stream technology", but I was not able to locate any in-depth, independent, reliable sources (per
  WP:COATRACK for eyeson. I don't see any good redirect target, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the patent EP2498491

WP:RS) on this particular technology? Don't we accept the European Patent Office as an independent and reliable institution? --Otto Nickl

([User talk:Otto Nickl|talk]]) 07:11, 16 August 2017 (CET)

Patents are reliable sources for some info, but aren't very useful at establishing notability, or terminology; they're pretty nearly like self-published papers. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have add a reference to an independent article from

Gartner Inc. and deleted all links to eyeson. --Otto Nickl (talk

) 23:20, 22 October 2017 (CET)

• I'm not the most tech savvy person, and probably not enough so to do it myself competently, but probably merge and redirect to Multipoint control unit, in the hope that the coverage of the broader subject can actually be turned into something resembling an encyclopedia article. If all the unsourced content currently in this article is removed (in addition to the content that would basically be a product listing or technical manual even if was well sourced), there's really not enough here for even a stand alone section, much less a stand alone article. There's some mentions in books, but a lot of it seems to be about literally any other topic, including recycling, fertilizer, and apparently metallurgy. There's passing mention here, but it just passing mention and nothing more.

Even then, a redirect may not survive indefinitely if someone decides to write an article on single stream recycling, which seems to overall have a good deal more coverage than this topic (e.g., [11], [12]). Although I'm still not totally sure if there's enough to write a stand alone article on that either. GMG^talk 13:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This appears to be one company's terminology for something many companies offer (my best man works for one). The description here is a lightly rewritten version of the article on the company's page, which is where anyone searching this term would want to end up anyway. I can't find any independent NOTEability either in the references or the topic itself. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (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.

Global U8 Consortium

Global U8 Consortium (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 notability asserted, no sources found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a real organization but is not very high profile in English speaking areas. Wasn't added to List of higher education associations and alliances for some reason so it may not be notable. https://www.iff.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/iff/en/documents/press-kit/pm20140611-university-magdeburg-and-fraunhofer-iff-join-global-education-and-research-network.pdf Randomeditor1000 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not able to find better sourcing than what is there-- company website. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2017 (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) 19:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wire (Indian web publication)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

The Wire (Indian web publication) (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)

1. First reference - Alexa Site info.
2. Second reference- self website source.
3. Third reference- Business standard is third party source. But Business Standard is a notable newspaper with business related news. And the given source is like company list, not focussing only on The Wire, but "The Quint is one of several portals in the Indian cyberspace which are re-imagining news. The Wire, Quartz, Scroll, Catch News are among the other 'original content websites"
4. Fourth reference- About Us. The Wire.
5. Fifth reference- Related website.
6. Sixth reference- The news about this website being launched, as it is founded by a notable person.
7. Seventh reference- Columbia Journalism Review, article not exclusively about the website. More about the founder Siddharth Varadarajan, who is already notable.

Other sources are related to this website for being in the news for writing controversial articles about famous politicians. The "third party independent" articles are more about the controversies, denials, counter-accusations. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 19:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Finally, I would like to add some context to the nomination for deletion of this article. The article's namesake publication - The Wire - has published a variety of controversial articles about Indian politics. In response, The Wire has been threatened with lawsuits and possible coercion by the Indian government and others. Such persecution has been especially acute since the site published an article called "The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah" on October 8th, 2017. Only a few days after the backlash to this article's publication in India, The Wire's Wikipedia page was nominated for deletion under flimsy pretexts. One cannot help but wonder whether the article's nomination for deletion is part of a broader attempt to censor, delegitimize and obscure The Wire. A Wikipedia page cannot advertise or advocate for any side in a conflict or controversy, but should stick to the facts as supported by robust references: the article on The Wire does this. As such, to delete the article would reflect a bias - with Wikipedia seeming to take the side of the current Indian administration in its conflict with The Wire. To uphold Wikipedia's ideals of impartiality and objectivity, this article should not be deleted. Screensofthought (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)— Screensofthought (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No coherent justification for this article's deletion is put forth by users, therefore its deletion is unjustified. Marvellous Spider-Man seems to imply that information contained in the Wikipedia page on The Wire is already contained in the Wikipedia page of one of its editors, Siddharth Varadarajan, and that this renders the page redundant. In actuality, The Wire involves many individual editors and journalists, of which Varadarajan is just one player: the publication is not at all synonymous with him. Varadarajan's page contains only a small amount of information about The Wire, which barely overlaps with the information contained in this article, thus concerns about redundancy are not legitimate. Siddharth Varadarajan and The Wire are seperate entities that are prominent in their own rights and each merits a separate page. Marvellous Spider-Man also seems to object to the fact that some of this article's sources mention Siddharth Varadarajan in addition to The Wire. As Screensofthought has said above, inclusion of information about other topics does not invalidate the relevant information contained within this article's references. 96.246.32.210 (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC) — 96.246.32.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Appears to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web). The CJS article quoted by the nominator [13] discusses the business model of the wire extensively. Numerous articles appear to have been written about the two court cases against it, focusing the discussion on the mission of the wire (not just reporting the outcomes of the cases) (cf. [14], [15], [16], [17] - I just pulled these off the first couple of pages of a google search, there are many more). --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentioned in The New York Times this morning in an op-ed on censorship in India [18]. There seem to be enough references for a keep.--regentspark (comment) 12:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This passes Notability guideline for web content, also brief search through above newslinks yields numerous instances of detailed mention. Keep and tag for improvement rather than delete –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2017 (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.

Apple Neural Engine (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 need to keep an article which contains only two sentences

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 14:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Nominator fails to advance a valid reason for deletion, per
  talk) 05:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Merge I disagree with the nominators reasoning for deletion but in my opinion the Neural Engine itself isn't notable, the A11 chip is and therefore these two sentences should just be merged into the A11 article... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, no objection to a merge, if preferable, per
    talk) 06:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep At the time of the nomination this article does indeed appear to have been a stub... but that isn't a reason for deletion. It looks like some content has been added to the article after its listing here, maybe as a good faith effort to to stave off deletion, but the latest additions may need some editing as it reads a little like fluff. While the content could be merged into Apple A11, I'm in favor of the article remaining a stand-alone article as I anticipate it will evolve along the lines of Apple motion coprocessors. —RP88 ^(talk) 09:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the information itself is useful but not freestanding, merge into the A11 and AI accelerator articles as appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable subject, and although it is related to the A11 it is sufficiently significant in its own right to deserve an article. The king of the sun (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge - Subject is definitely notable, nominator didn't specify a specific reason for deletion. Per
  Talk 17:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Lots of sources. Unique and prominent feature to a high profile product. Probably not the last we'll hear of this from Apple. Probably a common feature to similar products in the future from other manufacturers/designers. -- Henriok (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge There are not enough sources that show the Apple Neural Engine is independently notably from the A11 chip. Merge is the best option.
  -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:TOOSOON. References are all to tech-related sources, whilst this one makes it clear the Neural Engine is a trademark-type name for an element of the Apple A11. One source I found just dismisses the name as a "buzz-word". I must declare my lack of technical expertise here, but merging seems to make sense at this point in time. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge: This is a AI accelerator, a topic which does not appear to have spawned any articles for the similar functionality found in, say, AMD. I suspect this will change in the future, especially as it will likely be incorporated into the A12 and so forth, but for now this is a feature of one architecture and should be covered there. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: I agree, we either merge it with the
  talk) 16:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Antwerp#Culture. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antwerpian dialect

Antwerpian dialect (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 couldn't find nothing that distinguish this dialect from Brabantian dialect Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is a one-sentence article that hardly supplies any more information than what should be obvious from the article's title, i.e. that the Antwerpian dialect is spoken in Antwerp. Vorbee (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - article brings nothing to the encyclopedia. - NsTaGaTr ^(Talk) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. A cursory search reveals there are books entirely dedicated to the subject [19] [20], and at least two dictionaries have been published [21] [22]. Also noting that generally the dialect spoken in an urban area may be quite different from the rural dialects surrounding it. Now, it's a separate question whether it's better to have a one-sentence stub or a redirect to the relevant paragraph in Antwerp#Culture. – Uanfala 23:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (for now) to Brabantian dialect. Quick look at the Dutch article, tells a few distinguishes from Brabantian but as the article looks now with merely a lead sentence, a redirect is preferable. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this gets redirected, then a better target at present would be Antwerp#Culture. – Uanfala 21:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor one-sentence article. Not needed in my view. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Antwerp#Culture. Carrite (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2017 (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.

Live at the Globe of Yesterday's Tomorrow (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*DeleteRedirect - The band itself is arguably not notable. A

• I originally voted delete but it looks like the band article will be kept so there is an actual redirect target.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to band article, likely search term at least. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to band article. Non-notable album.
  ^{• speak up •} 12:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 26 October 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Kersmo

Jimmie Kersmo (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion -related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can only find passing mentions, no significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -there are mentions of him and his career. The minimum amount has been reached. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining which sources are in-depth secondary coverage as per

WP:GNG? Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that you are peeved after the Demitz debacle but if you are going to !vote keep on all the associated articles that I nominate for deletion you really need to give valid arguments. Simple mentions are not sufficient to meet GNG. GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I looked at the sources and I could not find the coverage necessary but I may have missed something so please don't hesitate to cite the sources you feel are enough that will help the others who !vote and I will happily withdraw the nomination if I feel it is enough. Domdeparis (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get out if here... You lost it at Demitz. Log out of Wikipedia for an hour. Good luck.BabbaQ (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Domdeparis got a point here. In the last article I voted as you because there were sources. Could you please give us the sources here on this page that makes you vote keep? Adville (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived several dead links that I read elsewhere. And added a few new sources and information to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better especially the Cosmo bit but for me it doesn't cut it as meeting GNG. But I'll let others decide. Domdeparis (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not close to meeting GNG.

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL would seem to apply here - a model will of course have his face displayed, it's part and parcel of the job, and the so-called "famous" adverts don't seem to have been notable per WP's definition. Or if the ads were written about, which I don't know, Kersmo's name was not mentioned in any case. I have looked for sources in English and Swedish, but again it's either trivial mentions or non-RS sources like blogs. --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Delete. Harem just a side role. Foto modeling, but not so visible for that on externa places (googled) dressman is huge, but not notorius. The vodka, ok but its just a taste and the source a vine blogg. Too weak sources. I really tried to find better sources. Adville (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medium rare KEEP refer to BabbaQ Boeing720 (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kersmo was one of the most high profile people ever seen on all the major commercial channels of Swedish television, featured for several years centrally or solo, both dressed and undressed, in very frequent ads by a major Nordic clothier. Anyone who watched television in Sweden in those years would immediately know his face. If that had not been the case, this article would probably have never been created.

If this were really the case where are the sources? Domdeparis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for the same reason as given by the anonymous poster above. The Dressman ads are very visible and well known in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about the ads but the person. Notability is not inherited. Add sources that mention him and this will help prove his notability. Domdeparis (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appearing in ads or photo shoots if you're a model adds absolutely nothing to notability per the notability guideline. They are at best primary sources that are not independent of the subject, and as such don't cut it. The only thing the ads show is that Kersmo showed up for work and did what models do at work.

There are just too few WP:RS to establish notability, but the article is padded with non-RS to make it look supported. Model Mayhem and Promod appear to be model agencies, which means they aren't independent and questionable as RS. I don't really know what the Fashonisto is, but it doesn't look major. He's mentioned among others as one of the Harem participants. The Cosmopolitan article is the best argument for notability, but the scarcity of other significant mentions in WP:RS means that I must not-vote for delete. Sjö (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources are sufficient to show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough
  WP:SIGCOV in reliable media to establish notability.–Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No source is in-depth. Small appearances and mentions does not prove notability. /Elzo 90 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (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.

Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip)

Grail Quest (The Fantasy Trip) (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)

Long out of print adventure for long out of print RPG system. Fails the GNG going away (with the only extant review being from a magazine owned by the fellow who wrote the RPG system) and any other notability standard pertaining to RPG adventures. A redirect to the system would ordinarily be called for, but would fail WP:XY, given the odds someone doing a search for "grail quest" would be seeking mainstream Arthurian legendry instead Ravenswing 05:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to The Fantasy Trip. BOZ (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would you like to put forth a policy-based rationale to advocate either? Ravenswing 13:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets GNG with multiple independent RS'es that discuss the topic. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens.
  talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sourcing of the article meets GNG with independent references over three decades. Not sure what the nom is on about. Newimpartial (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ... the fact that the nom (who has seen far far too many airy assertions about the validity of sources at AfD) would like very much to see these sources for himself, and find out whether they do, indeed, provide the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires, as well as ascertain whether they're actually reliable sources. Happily, my local library network's got one of the books, so we'll see. (Just out of curiosity, have you seen the sources yourself?) Ravenswing 14:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do know that the fact you can't see these yourself isn't a criterion for deletion, right?
    WP:AGF unless there's some clear reason to disbelieve the sources being added are legitimate and properly characterized, which in that case would be a bigger editor conduct issue than anything else... Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I'll reiterate: I've seen far too claims that sources meet the requirements of the GNG when they did nothing of the sort to just say "Oooh, sources!" and walk on. Did you yourself review those sources before voting Keep? Of course you must have, and I welcome you bringing me up to speed on in what detail they cover the subject. Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing I don't have a 1980 run of Space Gamer but I know what it's likely to say; I've read Schick before and own Appelcline. Anyway, you are illicitly reversing the onus about sources, presumably out of some kind of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Please don't bring that to AfD. Newimpartial (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@ You would, then, have no problem with restating exactly what Appelcline says about the subject, then, would you? Ravenswing 17:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appelcline notes the publication of Grail Quest as part of Metagaming's initial push to support The Fantasy Trip under the leadership of Guy McLimore, who became line editor.

I will admit that Grail Quest receives less ink than Treasure of the Silver Dragon, but that is because of its real-world treasure hunt tie-in, not their relative importance to RPG publishing. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their "relative importance" isn't something the GNG takes into consideration, as I'm sure you know. It's coverage. Are we talking several paragraphs about Grail Quest here, or are we talking something like "Among McLimore's credits are X, Y, Grail Quest and Z" ... ? The Space Gamer review doesn't satisfy the GNG; we're talking a magazine published just a few months before by the company that produced it, and one owned by the company which at the time was seeking to buy the game system. Right now, these assumptions that the subject meets the GNG rise and fall on just these two cites. Ravenswing 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So ... my local library just put a copy of Schick into my hands, and it's a capsule encyclopedia of RPG products; there are thousands listed. Here's the sum total of the Grail Quest reference: "Solo scenario usable with TFT, Melee, or Wizard. The PCs are Knights of the Round Table, searching the countryside for the Holy Grail. Digest-sized box, 32-pg book, counters, die, Metagaming, 1980."

  This is as painfully inadequate a reference to meet the GNG as it would be to use the reference to support my notability (as it happens, I'm the listed author or co-author of several gamebooks and scenarios mentioned in the book). Would anyone care to proffer a reference for this product that actually meets the GNG? Ravenswing 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Ravenswing, that is a GNG-compliant reference. It is an independent source, and a long discussion is not required. Also, please note that the sourcing requirements for BLP articles (as your WP article would be, unless you are posting as a revenant) are considerably more strict than those for published works, especially for forms such as 1970s RPG products where the print references exist but can be difficult to acquire and/or verify. You seem to be applying unnecessarily strict, non-GNG compliant standards on an IDONTLIKEIT basis. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail," "* We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."

There is no way in creation (and certainly not as it is uniformly applied on Wikipedia)) that this represents "significant coverage," and there is nothing about 1980s RPG products that immunize them from the GNG's requirements. You'd be better off finding legitimate GNG-compliant sources than in incivilly throwing slurs to cover the lack. Are you then declining to present Appelcline's cite in full, while I'm thinking about it? Ravenswing 05:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to misunderstand the requirements of the GNG, which is intended to ensure that an adequate article can be written from reliable sources, including secondary sources, which is clearly the case here. The topic is directly and non-trivially engaged in multiple independent sources, which is the requirement.

I have summarized Appelcline's discussion of the topic and assessed its significance above, which is more than I am required to do. I am certainly not going to type it in as well, though others are free to do so. Per policy, though, GNG is certainly met. Newimpartial (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2017 (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; as the subject has a section in Rooster Teeth, I have redirected the title to that section. bd2412 T 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Camp

Camp Camp (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)

Animated web series not covered by independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, and NFILM. Wikipedia is not a

• Keep It doesnt matter if it has full-length reviews. its made by Rooster Teeth and it deserves its own page. Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Actually, @
  the general notability guideline. I did a bit of searching, and I couldn't find a single article that I would call "significant coverage in a reliable source". I did find a few instances of reliable sources covering Camp Camp (Entertainment Weekly, Mashable, TubeFilter, Animation World Network), but it was all trivial coverage -- most of them were just a few short paragraphs to accompany a trailer. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete for failing the basic notability guideline
  WP:SIGCOV and the invalid reason for creating it. Per author own admission (above) it was created not because it is notable per se, but because the author thinks since "its made by Rooster Teeth [it must have] its own page". Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I believe one of the bases to delete this page to be slightly misguided. I do not believe
  WP:WEB (as opposed to NFILM), it is stated that "when evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture." I am unsure to what extent this means, but at the very least– this web content has often been topic of discussion on the Tumblr platform. I don't know if that is of any relevance to this debate, or to WP:WEB, but I figured I'd offer up that information. — ^Systematic_Anarchy ( t • c ) 23:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  — SystematicAnarchy (talk • contribs) has made only one edit on their userpage outside this topic.

• Delete - notability is required - please see
  WP:GNG - and this doesn't make the grade by quite a long way.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete GNG fail, and no SNGs brought forth to save it. I would agree with SystematicAnarchy except I want some more news articles to satisfy the GNG for me. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (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.

Abdul Hafeez (chemist)

Abdul Hafeez (chemist) (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 in-depth coverage in

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 16:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per the two refs supplied in the article. AfD is not a venue for cleanup. Also, this source describes him as a chief chemist, and a "leading politician of the Pakistan Movement." Mar4d (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, familiarize yourself with

WP:V because no article can pass GNG with namecheck or single source discussing him. Greenbörg (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I can Agree with User:Greenbörg. Delete this until someone demonstrate that the subject is indeed worthy enough to merit a bio on WP. --Saqib (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 05:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this is a local story; trivial, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete generally we do not base articles on opinion pieces. When they call the person covered "unsung" and related un statements, it seems fair to saying they are unnotable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Although the July article was in the Opinion section of the magazine[Dr. Abdul Hafeez - the unsung, uncared and unused scientist of Pakistan, Defence Journal (Pakistan), July 2000], the June 2000 article was a secondary cover story[27]. Unless Defence Journal isn't reliable, it seems that this individual passes WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. One issue is that the two references are not independent of each other, and thus the article doesn't clearly overcome WP:NPOV. But from what I see, the subject seems suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- sources establish sufficient notability. The subject is long dead, so there's no promotionalism concerns. An acceptable article at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I failed to find coverage in multiple sources discussing him in detail. He is dead but still no one noted his death. Delete for me again. Greenbörg (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that given there are a sufficient set of sources in English for
  WP:GNG. No-one has bothered to do a search in his own language, based on his name in Urdu script or searched in Pakistani sources. This is a clear keep. Indeed a cursory search for "عبدالحفیظ" shows a number of things which are probably good sources, I don't have the time or inclination to search for sources in a language I don't know so I will leave this to someone who doesn’t need to use google translate. Dysklyver 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep because POF, which he founded, seems notable to warrant the inclusion of its founder. Nuke (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and tag for more sources. Clearly identified as leading weapon scientist in
  WP:RS and many more non-English sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2017 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of territorial entities where Afrikaans and Dutch are official languages

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

For one thing, this is a full article, not a list as the title would lead one to expect. Aside from that, I don't see the value of a single article combining information about the official status in various locations of an arbitrary pair of languages. This article spells out the fact that Dutch and Afrikaans are closely related, but that's tangential to the question of the countries in which a specific language has official status. It really isn't different from having an article on territorial entities where, say, Tamil and Swahili have official status. Each language might support its own article, but combining them into one isn't useful. Largoplazo (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree This is odd, because the same articles already exist on the Dutch, Dutch and Afrikaans Wikipedia. They both included Afrikaans and Dutch in the same article, like it is common to address Dutch and Afrikaans in the same article (see here, here and here). The proposal for deletion is a proposal to fast. You should have considered another proposal (f.e. change the title) or just talk to the writer (= me) to address your concerns. Direct nomination without asking is just rude.I90Christian (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 19:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not seeing how those three articles, of which one is about the narrow topic of the recognition of Dutch in South Africa, and the others of which are each about recognition of one of the two languages, are pertinent to this article that merges the two topics together. Also, different language Wikipedias are distinct projects. The existence of an article on another Wikipedia doesn't even guarantee that it passes muster there (it may be that it qualifies for deletion but no one has addressed it), let alone does it have a role in determining the status of a corresponding article here. Deletion decisions here are based on English Wikipedia's guidelines.

So, for example, I do see that the Dutch article on the recognition of Dutch has an Afrikaans section. I don't know the practices on Dutch Wikipedia, so I don't know whether it's accepted there that Afrikaans stands even today as a subcategory of Dutch. As far as I know, someone will come along and remove that section on the same grounds I would, as a digression from the topic of the article. Meanwhile, here, even the fact that you mentioned Afrikaans explicitly in the title indicates an awareness that readers here will consider it a separate language from Dutch. Whatever sense, if there is one, that Afrikaans is Dutch may underlie practices on Dutch Wikipedia, I don't believe that that sense would be held by editors here. Largoplazo (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About deletion nomination without asking being rude: I don't know what I would have asked you. I didn't have any doubts. It was clear that the combination made sense to you, but I disagreed and I wanted to put this in front of the community for consideration. Largoplazo (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. From a very cursory Google search sources exist which discuss the history of Dutch and Afrikaans as an official language in South Africa. [28] [29] [30]. Presumably a deeper search would turn up sources for the other nations, if not academic sources, then at least official governmental sources. I'm not sure what is the point of the comparison to Tamil and Swahili. Afrikaans is a linguistic descendant of Dutch developed by Dutch settlers in South Africa, while Swahili and Tamil do not have such a history AFAIK. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)(Temporarily striking 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• I addressed that Afrikaans is related to Dutch, and stated that I don't see what difference that makes. They are, today, two separate languages, each with its own set of places where it's official. Largoplazo (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They're two language with a good degree of mutual intelligibility (see Afrikaans#cite_note-15). One developed as a daughter language of the other in the relatively recent past compared to other mother-daughter language pairs, and several countries have them as official languages. Off the top of my head, I can't think of another language pair that would be analogous. Saying that the Afrikaans-Dutch language pair is analogous to the Tamil-Swahili pair as you did in your nomination statement is incorrect and a misrepresentation of the former language pair's special relationship. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The analogy is perfectly good in the absence of an explanation as to why a degree of interrelatedness beyond a given threshold (and what threshold is that?) suddenly makes it a good idea to have an article on Wikipedia that's about two things that aren't the same thing, where the information the article gives about each is completely unrelated to the information given about the other (the areas where Dutch and Afrikaans are official are mutually exclusive), instead of having different articles about them. Exactly what advantage does having this article confer over having two separate articles? The presence of the additional note that the languages are related? For one thing, that's off-topic (the topic being "where are these languages official", not "what is the linguistic relationship between these languages"). For another, it's already covered in articles that do cover linguistic relationships. There's no reason for this hodgepodge. Largoplazo (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going edit my !votes about above until I can get a better sense of the sources available. It may be better to merge some of the content in this article to the main Afrikaans article and/or Languages of South Africa and add some hatnotes to relevant articles. I would maintain that the Afrikaans-Dutch language would be the best one to have an article on, but I'll strike my !vote and comments above until I look at sources more in depth.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No rationale for deletion is included in the nomination. What's said could be basis for suggesting a split perhaps, into one article on Afrikaans and one on Dutch. Note if the article was split, it would immediately become appropriate to merge them, because the languages are overlapping / closely related. I think/presume that the nominator is unfamiliar with the languages, and should not be involved in judging how articles like this should be organized. --doncram 18:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I gave my rationale and I specifically and prominently covered my opinion about the relevance of the relationship between the two languages, given that the article purports to be not about the languages (related) but about where they're spoken (unrelated), one might reasonably ask that you replace your contribution with a response that's consistent with the facts. En, ja, ik weet heel goed de verhouding tussen de twee talen (ik heb drie jaat in België gewoont), ek kan ook 'n beetjie Afrikaans lees en verstaan, and I've even translated from both languages on Wikipedia. So, clearly, my nomination is not based on a lack of awareness of and appreciation for the relationship between the two languages, but on my opinion of its relevance in this context. Largoplazo (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I was thinking/presuming incorrectly about the language skill of nominator (sorry, and perhaps i could buy you a kopje coffee someday to attone). But, the nomination does not provide argument for deletion. It provides complaint perhaps about the naming of the article (so discuss that at the Talk page and perhaps open a
  wp:RM request) and it complains about the scope of the article (so suggest a split of the article at its Talk page). There is no issue about General Notability Guidelines being met, and no valid deletion argument at all. In fact this should be Speedy Keep decided. --doncram 23:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename and rewrite OR delete The article could be tweaked into a valid entry but has been set up as misleading and
  WP:OR. I have linked it to the valid entries in Dutch and French. Either follow these examples or delete. In the current form, we are better with no such article. gidonb (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Can you point to the parts that are misleading or WP:OR according to you? I do not see any parts that are misleading and WP:OR. I90Christian (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I90Christian, thanks for the question. I hope to get to that in the next couple of days. It will take me some time to write on this topic. An other way to get there is just comparing with the articles in Dutch and French that are largely valid. gidonb (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete Merge any missing info to Afrikaans#Geographic distribution and Dutch language#Geographic distribution. This article is not a list, nor is is about places where Afrikaans and Dutch are spoken, but is instead about places where Afrikaans and/or Dutch are spoken. I doubt that very much Afrikaans is spoken in Belgium. Although these two languages are similar, the premise behind the title is incorrect. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep per
  List of territorial entities where Portuguese is an official language need to be checked before this AfD is closed. ToThAc (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2017 (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dabo in Action

Dabo in Action (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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non notable film failing
  WP:NFILM. Celestina007 (talk) 00:10, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no references, none found (not even IMDb) and no presumption of notability.
  π, ν) 00:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]