Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 5 August 7 August >

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. While more participation here would have been desirable, overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 01:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coope Boyes and Simpson

Coope Boyes and Simpson (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

WP:NBAND --woodensuperman 10:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has a few sources already, more is evident in simple searches to verify their status as a notable, long-lasting folk music trio. The Guardian in 2016, reviewing their final album: "one of the finest a cappella vocal groups on the British folk scene" [1]. The Sunday Herald in 2011: "Music that is so purely man-made rarely sounds as organically beautiful as this." [2] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, existing sources show that major reviews of their albums do exist, and further reviews such as this exist. They also have a biography on Allmusic which gives some verifiable info. I have added both to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Rowneybury House

Rowneybury House (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

WP:GNG as the only notability asserted for the structure is its former ownership by David & Victoria Beckham. It is otherwise unremarkable. As an alternative to deletion, merge into David Beckham. Geoff | Who, me? 22:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — passes
    WP:GNG
    because:
    • "Significant coverage" — covered in detailed by multiple article in UK national press and magazines.
    • "Reliable" — in published sources like The Times, Ideal Home, etc.
    • "Independent of the subject" — the above sources are independent.
    • "Presumed" — the house is well-known, in the UK at least, and is Grade II listed.
It is also associated with Victoria Beckham, not just David Beckham — merging into just the latter would be sexist, IMHO, it would need to be in both these articles. Therefore keep, IMHO. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although the sources say it's a listed building I can't find it in a search for listed or de-listed buildings, and very few houses built as recently as 1930 are - sources could have confused it with Rowneybury Cottage. Peter James (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like it is actually the older Rowneybury Cottage by the entrance to the estate that is Grade II listed, well spotted. I have updated the article with brief information on this. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek (playback singer)

Vivek (playback singer) (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)

Mistakenly I applied afd on the article which I created, kindly help me removing it Ecstaticmind (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The early part of the debate seemed to be a good-faith attempt to prove notability by historic footage uploaded as a copyright violation to the internet, which caused problems; however after the relist, there seems to be general consensus that this is a notable biography to have on the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Charls (diver)

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

Case of

WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you look into this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_male_divers all of the divers have minor sources. I know Wikipedia needs relaible media coverage to this record but this record is from 1983 when there were no online media resources available that is why it cannot be cited. Look at the
    Rick Charls (diver), this article is present on the wikipedia since 2009. I think this article should not be removed due to lack of online media coverage at that time there was no online media which can be provided as reference. Yosh (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. MER-C 06:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep He is clearly notable, and some kind of magnificent nutter. But finding good sources may be difficult. I spent four hours looking 1 decent source, but no joy. Nothing in Google Books. Newspapers.com and the wayback machine are Perhaps the best place to look. All the sources currently applied to the article at the moment are Non RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs)
    • Thank you.How much are you charging for crystal-gazing, now-a-days?∯WBGconverse 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-What the nom said.And, I don't think that this adds much of a notability, either.∯WBGconverse 10:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia clearly states in it's Identifying Reliable Sources section that broadcast videos and multimedia meet the necessary requirements to be considered as reliable sources. This guy has very reliable broadcast video sources from both ESPN and ABC Sports. The accomplishment is clearly notable and has endured the "test of time." I recently saw this video on Facebook. In one month it had close to 5 million views and 52,000 shares. While Facebook is not a reliable source, that fact that 52,000 people would share the video tells me that this World Record Dive from 35 years ago is notable. That fact that hundreds of divers have tried unsuccessfully to break this record makes it even more impressive. While I'm not a Wikipedia writer/editor, I find it strange that all Major League Baseball Players, past and present, 19,100 of them are considered notable and eligible for a page. The same privileges are given to 23,204 current and former NFL football players, some who haven't even played in a game. Yet this guy, Charls, who competed in a lower tier sport that has no notability guidelines set forth by Wikipedia has an article that is being considered for deletion. Remember, there were no online print media sources available in the 80's. Many of the print news agencies have gone out of business. His World Record High Dive along with his other high diving accomplishments have paved the way for high diving as it is today. A growing sport that has not only become the most popular event at the FINA World Aquatic Championships, but is now also being considered as an Olympic event. Charls' accomplishments are notable, verifiable and should be recognized. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.112.16.160 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — 172.112.16.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment ∯WBGconverse He is exceedingly notable, and belongs to a very small prestigious group of people, numbering less than 5 people, in the last 50 years. Diving >50m is rare, and requires tremendous courage and skill, qualities that mark the group outside the norms of normal diving, as as such notable. scope_creep (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, please.I guess some reliable source (other than you, of course) might have appreciated the brilliance of such an achievement and hence,........∯WBGconverse 09:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Another source from a reputable broadcast media company in the United States, NBC Sports. The 1982 World Target Diving Championships from Hawaii. Charls wins the Bronze medal.

www.facebook.com/rick.charls/videos/t.100001380292341/198305776892097/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab }— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk • contribs) — 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment Additional resources from ESPN and NBC Sports both highly respected and reliable broadcast media companies in the United States.

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df2RMwR7fWo&feature=youtu.be

- https://www.youtube.com/edit?video_id=bQgk2z1iWAw&video_referrer=watch

  • Comment Joseph, WGB would you kindly review Wikipedia’s guidelines for citing sources and what constitutes notability. Wikipedia clearly states that sources may encompass all forms of media including broadcast media. There seems to be some confusion that the only acceptable sources must be from print media. This in not the case. There is no fixed number of sources required, but multiple sources are generally recommended. Rick Charls has 4 solid broadcast media sources from the most trusted, reputable names in sports reporting. His 1983 World Record High Dive and 3rd place finish in the 1982 World High Diving Championship were covered by ABC’s Wide World of Sports with the World Record dive recently having gone viral on social media. Additional sources have recently been added on this page as per the request of WGB. They include broadcasts of his 3rd place finish in the 1982 World Target Diving Championships covered by NBC Sports and his 2nd place finish at the 1989 Mixed Pairs Cliff Diving Championships seen on ESPN. All of these broadcast media companies provided verifiable, objective evidence proving that the subject has gained significant independent coverage and recognition from very reliable sources. This recognition was not just for his World Record, but for a number of events that took place over the course of 8 years. According to Wikipedia, this sustained coverage is a strong indicator of notability as described by notability of events. While Facebook is not considered a reliable source, it does provide an online outlet to show more reputable media sources. In this case the subjects 3rd place finish in the World Target Diving Championships. This page was originally put up for deletion over a Guinness World Record certificate that was posted on the subjects page. That’s preposterous. A Guinness certificate is an award not an accomplishment. While I understand your initial concerns, I hope the added information and a better understanding of Wikipedia policies will lead you to reconsider and revoke your nomination to have the page deleted. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk • contribs) — 2605:e000:7f13:5a00:6157:c063:4111:1eae (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • So far we've had two argumentative IP users, who are almost certainly the same user, using poor quality sources. A Youtube video of the event is not "significant coverage about him", it's coverage of an event that he happened to be in. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Joseph Joseph, YouTube is a video sharing service that allows people to upload videos from very reliable sources. In this case ABC's Wide World of Sports, NBC Sports and ESPN. Are you implying that these broadcast media giants aren't reliable? They're the most reliable news sources in the United States, if not the World. Far more reliable that any print media. To be featured and interviewed by these sources for Holding World Records and Winning World Championships like Charls did, is far more notable than the 23,000 football players and 19,000 baseball players that are eligible for pages. Did all of these players have significant coverage? No. They were part of an event. Half of these players were bench warmers and didn't even get into the game, yet according to Wikipedia, they are deemed notable. When someone competes in the Olympics, they are part of an event. I urge you to not only review Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources and notability, but stop giving your opinion. Wikipedia facts only.
(non voter comment) Response to above post, whether someone similar to the subject has an article on Wikipedia or doesn't have an article on Wikipedia is not releveant to whether this subject should have an article on Wikipedia. JC7V-constructive zone 18:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response to non voter The point I was trying to make was in response to Josephs comment that the subject is not noteworthy because sources were of an event that he happened to be in. Wikipedia makes it clear that people who are part of certain events like the Olympics, Commonwealth Games, etc. are noteworthy even though the coverage in not about them.
  • Keep Subject/person has gained significant independent coverage and recognition from very reliable broadcast media sources. As per Wikipedia guidelines broadcast media is an acceptable source. In a day and age of "fake news", it is also, in my opinion, far more reliable than print media sources. Sustained coverage of this person over a period of 8 years, 1982-1990, is a strong indicator of notability, not to mention the accomplishment of holding a World Record for over a quarter of a century.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorGuy (talk • contribs) — ProfessorGuy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
WP:SPA
junk, there's not much serious discussion here. Hoping another week will produce something useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roy, you & Joseph continue to deflect Wikipedia policies with your opinion. I'm insulted that you would call my comments "junk", especially when I am citing rules set forth by Wikipedia regarding sourcing and notability. As I have mentioned in previous posts, Wikipedia clearly states that broadcast media is a strong, reliable and acceptable source. Charls has 4 media sources from highly reputable companies, ESPN, ABC's Wide World of Sports (2) and NBC Sports. The sustained coverage over an 8 year period that includes a World Record High Dive from 172 ft in 1983 that still stands today indicates notability, yet you deflect these accomplishments by talking about
        WP:SPA
        . When putting an article up for deletion Wikipedia asks for facts as to why the article should be deleted or kept, yet you make the comment "Once you wade through and ignore the massive amount of junk there's not much to consider." Huh? Are you serious? Take some time to review Wikipedia policies. It doesn't matter who makes these comments, only that they are accurate. I have accurately explained the facts as to why we should keep this article, all supported by Wikipedia. Can you please, objectively explain, citing rules and regulations from Wikipedia, why it should be deleted. Please, no opinion. FACTS only.
  • Comment, this looks like someone readers would look for, so if not kept (note: i am not saying keep or delete:)), a redirect to High diving with more words there may be appropriate rather than a delete? Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - World Record holder in high diving. I actually found this deletion debate looking up his name on the internets after watching the video of his record-tying dive. It was pretty impressive. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes notability guidelines due to being a record holder for a significant and challenging record.
    (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Person has held a difficult World Record, thus indicating notability. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - coverage by shows such as Wide World of Sports could certainly count towards notability, and it would be helpful if more details were given such as original broadcast date, etc. That said, is the coverage a 30-second clip of an incredible stunt, or is there an in-depth profile of the diver within the coverage? Has there been continued coverage/competition regarding extreme high-diving, or was this a brief 1980s fad? Are the "World Professional High Diving Championships" [4] or the "World Mixed Diving Championship" [5] (sorry for paywall links) notable? Notability isn't temporary, so how followed/covered were they at the time? The discussion as exists makes notability difficult to judge, at least to me. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Kolontarov

Shalom Kolontarov (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)

Bio with no reliable sources. One self published eBook, some YouTube stuff, and a few bit parts in small productions. Does not appear in any way to meet notability requirements. JamesG5 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent School, Hostert

Kent School, Hostert (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)

Merge. This school appears to have had about a 23 year history under the name Kent School, and then was combined with another school to become Windsor School, Germany. Most of the history currently in the article appears to be from before the building became "Kent School" in 1963. It would seem more appropriate to merge the history of this school under a subsection of Windsor School. If coverage of the school itself expands significantly, than it can be broken out into separate article. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This deletion proposal has simply arisen out of irritation that it resulted in
Kent School, USA having to be disambiguated and a desire to see the latter as the primary article again. So there is no real logic to this: we do not normally threaten articles with deletion simply because they're stubs and have yet to be developed. Kent School, Hostert, is just as notable as most of the schools listed on Wikipedia and more notable than many. It was a major British secondary school for our Forces in Germany with over 1000 pupils at its peak and has several notable alumni including a Baroness. It was housed in buildings that have a dark and fascinating history, a witness to that was that bodies were discovered when the school was being redeveloped, and is well worth an article in its own right. There are numerous different sources that support its notability including official ones as well as press articles. It existed as part of Windsor School for around 8 years - far less time than it had existed independently - so a merger with Windsor School makes no sense. It was reasonable to challenge the disambiguation naming; deletion or merging is excessive. Bermicourt (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: it appears I dorked up this AfD and it ended up under the heading of Shalom Kolontarov in the main AfD page. Can someone fix that as I don’t know how.

Good job expanding the article. However, it appears that the history of Kent and Windsor Schools are entwined, and thus perhaps would be better off as one article because it does not seem, in this case, that there is enough content for the one on Kent School to be split off. Even some of the references refer to them collectively as "Kent/Windsor School". One possible suggestion is upon merge to rename the new article to "Kent/Windsor School" since they are both now closed. As far as your comment about this AfD nom, I suggest you stick to the subject, and assume good faith. In terms of final disposition, my recommendation is to keep the Kent School, Hostert as a redirect after merge. I do not propose deletion. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's all interesting stuff, but it would be better addressed on the article talk page. Running this AfD is simply excessive. Withdraw it and we can concentrate on improving the article(s), discussing their titles and how best to disambiguate them. There are plenty of ways to skin this cat without trying to delete an article because it has a similar name to an existing one. Bermicourt (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - as the nominator, I support the request to withdraw this AFD with the intent of discussing the path forward for this article on it's talkpage. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shuswap Lake Monster

Shuswap Lake Monster (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

WP:FRIND sources available to enable an objective article to be written on the topic. LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hefty Records. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hughes III

John Hughes III (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)

Listing after declined PROD. Other than the New York Times profile, which alone doesn't give the subject notability, there's no evidence of in-depth or widespread coverage, or any indication of musical releases that would give the subject notability.

talk) 19:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep or Merge to Hefty Records. Hughes gets coverage for being a scion and for his music production and label work; either way, deletion isn't a profitable solution, so this is the wrong venue to bring the issue. Chubbles (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Keeper (band)

Secret Keeper (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)
An unsigned band that has self-released three EPs and one single since 2013. Apart from this review from the enthusiastic amateur site new-transcendence.com, a close look at the sources reveals that they are all self-published or promotional YouTube tracks/videos. [[
WP:DE-ORPHAN
in effect.
Vratim (brand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:ARTSPAM. Sam Sailor 18:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nom's analysis, topic fails the criteria, references are mostly PRIMARY and fail
    HighKing++ 20:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Social Center Osaka

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

fails

WP:GNG, advertising. Article is only based on related sources and not much else can be found. The Banner talk 18:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete complete lack of independent souring in the article, and in a web search. Entirely fails any notability test.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close as wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gay propaganda

Gay propaganda (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)

Forwarding is faulty and original. There is nothing in the article "Homosexual agenda" about Gay propaganda. Charmbook (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Deletion of a redirect is not appropriate here - go to
    WP:RFD. Hzh (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Talk 01:05, 7 August 2018 (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 no consensus. There's no real agreement on what should happen here. The best I can dig out is that this should be redirected to one of two possible targets. Deciding which of those makes more sense is outside the scope of AfD. Rather than relisting this, I'm just going to close the AfD and people can continue to discuss whether to redirect or not, and if so, to where, on the article talk page. If folks can't come to a consensus there, perhaps

WP:3O would be useful as a lighter-weight process than bringing it back here. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Zhu Zhengting

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

Article was converted into a redirect but some editors have frequently reverted that redirect. I have researched and the subject fails general notability thus nominating here for deletion.

Capitals00 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The corresponding page in the Chinese Wikipedia, zh:朱正廷 , has been deleted multiple times. Of course, the Chinese Wikipedia may have different criteia for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @

WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@
NEX7 are clearly associated. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 13:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted per

WP:CSD#A7.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Martin Kralev

Martin Kralev (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 notability per

WP:BIO. He was a contestant on a dancing show (as part of a group) but did not win. Also part of a song/video (again, one of a bunch of people). I can't find anything that discusses him significantly in independent sources. ... discospinster talk 17:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 01:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Challa Subrahmanyam

Challa Subrahmanyam (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)

Let's put this to rest. Already deleted twice via prod and no changes since the last time - all of these grandiose claims are sourced to exactly nothing (personal websites aside.) I can find no evidence that this person meets inclusion criteria or any reliable sources that cover them in depth. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I was just about to nominate this article for deletion as well.
    WP:AUTHOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Webjet. The history is still intact so if anybody feels the need to merge something, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webjet Exclusives

Webjet Exclusives (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)

Failure to satisfy the various aspects of

WP:NCORP. Plenty of mentions, a couple of pieces in non-reliable sources, but only reliable Sig Cov is on an action (Bit Coin usage) that doesn't actually tell us anything about the company. I suggest Redirect to Webjet Nosebagbear (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of duplicating that discussion, I would argue that all the content of this article is within the history section (14/15) in Webjet, making an actual merge redundant (though an altered format would be justified). Nosebagbear (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Webjet – preferably section Webjet#2014 or a new section to minimize confusion.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need for a merge as already covered. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is the best option as any searching will point to the parent article.
    HighKing++ 20:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sleishman

Sleishman (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)

After a search, I found insufficient secondary sources to pass the notability criteria here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Help finding sources would be appreciated! I get nearly 50,000 ghits and the good news is, they're nearly all about the drums and/or the drummer. But the bad news is, they're nearly all blogs and/or primary sources (magazine articles based on a trade press release for example). Sorting through them is not for the fainthearted. Paper magazines are the likely best source. Andrewa (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per

WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 02:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

La Revuelta (season 1)

La Revuelta (season 1) (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 composed of a 2 sentence lead and 6 empty sections and an empty infobox. Gonnym (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 01:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Cállate con Carlos Sicilia

Cállate con Carlos Sicilia (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 talk show. Host has no article, despite claims that he is famous. Unsourced. » Shadowowl | talk 21:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Red Phoenix talk 02:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Stewart-Coates

Allen Stewart-Coates (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)

Minor actor with no significant coverage. The only source cited in the article is IMDb. (A

talk) 15:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination if the article is not improved after some time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Edmunds

John K. Edmunds (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)

Per source searches, this subject does not meet

WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, with available usable sources consisting of name checks and faint mentions. The article relies upon a list of primary sources, which do not qualify notability, and from searches, no usable sources to meet WP:BASIC appear to be available. North America1000 14:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Leader of a significant church would pass notability guidelines.
    (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - I hunted for additional sourcing and could only find passing references. If there were some inherent notability of being in charge of the Salt Lake City Temple, you'd think we'd find coverage demonstrating that. Digging deeper, I can't find an obituary in a reliable source, which would be a good info source and proof of mainstream notability. I looked for sourcing for the book, and couldn't find any mainstream coverage outside of religious books and sites. The sourcing here and that which I found fails
    WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy no consensus. Look at the votes: there is NO WAY this is ever going to close as 'delete, and we are better off spending our energy elsewhere--just as closing this will be one less time sink for administrators, this AfD and its talk page apparently being a magnet for BLP violators. So I'll be diplomatic and say "No consensus", rather than the likely keep which I think most seasoned editors see here, judging by the comments. If you want to nominate this again, that's fine--but patience is a virtue. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeong

Sarah Jeong (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)

It's unclear to me how this stub BLP existed before a few days ago since this is how it looked. If you follow the news, then you know why this article has received attention in the past few days. Since then, every agenda-pushing person has come to the talkpage to push their own point of view there. The article was fully locked and since then, interminable discussions have ensued on the talk page, with seeming nothing getting done. This person, according to

Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Nah, it's Wikipedia's bias against/for people with certain opinions. This joke of a stub that does not pass BLP1E, together with the drama on the talkpage blatantly enforces that bias.
Nergaal (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
She gets enough secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG. She is mentioned by many different outlets and she has a hook to her. Article length is no reason to delete as many articles that meet WP:GNG are way shorter than this article. JC7V-constructive zone 22:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is bad and you should feel bad. A clearly retaliatory AFD with specious reasoning. A member of the editorial board of the paper of record of the United States with a long history of previous journalism should not have an article? If you are not serious, you should be topic banned for trolling, if you are, you should be banned per
    WP:COMPETENCE. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Speedy keep, even. She clearly meets notability requirements, and talk page drama is not a reason to delete an article. This AFD feels pretty disingenuous, to be honest. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does she "clearly meet notability requirements"? The only thing notable about her is the tweets. Should we have a BLP for everyone whose controversial tweets make the news? (that's, like, dozens of people every day). ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 August 6
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's incredibly difficult to find additional sources among the deluge of news coverage for the recent Twitter incident, but the sources from before are insufficient. I stand by my delete !vote until this Twitter incident is notable enough to have an article, or until Jeong achieves notability by some other means. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Writing off The Mary Sue as a "blog post" seems a misunderstanding of the concerns about blogs. It's not a
self-published source. The Mary Sue is an online publication that gets some reasonable degree of attention, and has an editorial board. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the correction. I've reread the page and amended the evaluation. — Newslinger talk 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your restatement, it still seems to miss the truth. The Mary Sue review goes well beyond just talking about the content of the book; it repeatedly is discussed as part of a larger picture of Jeong's efforts, citing her statements in an interview, and her engagement with an outside campaign. It discusses the book in the context of discussing Jeong and her views as a whole. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've reread the page one more time, and don't think this counts as significant coverage. There is one sentence mentioning and linking to a petition that Jeong signed, and it's mentioned to give context to a quotation from the book. — Newslinger talk 16:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, writing off
The Toast as a satiric site misses the mark. Did it include satire? Sure... as does The New Yorker, as does every paper that ever ran Erma Bombeck, Dave Barry, or "Doonesbury". But that is not all that it was. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Reread and amended. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jeong may not be "independent" enough for her own statements to be taken as flat fact in anything that would aggrandize, but I see no way in which The Toast is not independent, and their decision to interview Jeong should not be considered an indication of her import. Do we write off CBS News on the basis of not being "independent" of anyone they interview? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per
talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"no way in which"..."should not be". I fly the double-negative like a professional writifier, authing like only a real auther can! --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but only in this case. Please see
WP:GNG requires multiple sources to establish Jeong's notability, not just one.) Amended. — Newslinger talk 17:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd like to point out that the Harvard source provides a short bio, which should qualify as significant, unless you're setting standards very high. In any case, I don't think these shortcomings justify deletion. I'm sure sourcing could've been improved, although current events will make it much more difficult to find pre-controversy sources. As I said in my vote, this seems like a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion. Xcalibur (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a listing for her event, so the source wouldn't be independent, either. Amended. This isn't the first controversial
WP:BLP1E discussion, though this is certainly one of the more heated ones. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyssa Carson. — Newslinger talk 17:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Per
WP:IP, we're allowed to use non-independent sources, as long as we clearly indicate the connection. Of course independent sources are needed, but I still say this is excessively critical. Xcalibur (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course you can use those sources in the article. However,
WP:GNG is quite strict in requiring multiple sources that are independent (among other requirements) to establish notability in an AfD discussion. — Newslinger talk 17:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
There may be shortcomings in the several sources provided, but I insist that deletion is not an ideal solution, per
WP:GAME. I think that concern outweighs your criticism of sources, especially since sourcing can be improved. Xcalibur (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Guidelines like
WP:GNG, then Jeong qualifies for an article. — Newslinger talk 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, current events will make it considerably more difficult to search for sources not related to the controversy. I also think your standards for significant coverage are too exacting. Xcalibur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See this page view analysis for context. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when you scale it big enough, the earlier dates look like zero. But they weren't. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm showing that Jeong's notability comes from only one event, as described in
WP:BIO1E. I'm also showing the spike in talk page traffic after The Daily Caller reported on this Wikipedia article itself, to give other editors context on why this discussion is so heated. — Newslinger talk 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, and I'm showing that you're wrong, and that while there has certainly been a spike in the wake of The Daily Caller, the page was regularly visited before that; more visited than many other articles that have survived AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pageview stats aren't used by themselves to establish or counter an article subject's notability. I'm highlighting the change before and after August 2 (<100 vs 40,000-50,000), and offering context to other editors, not making an argument solely from the pageviews. For my actual argument, please defer to the notability of the cited sources above. — Newslinger talk 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The availability of the book now is not pertinent to how it was received then.
    talk) 14:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Untrue.
    talk) 14:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: ZinedineZidane98 has been
    talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Forbes 30 under 30, Wired, The Guardian, Yale.edu, Harvard.edu, The New York Times, and more, all before the controversy. The earlier sources may not be perfect, but they should be enough for
    WP:GAME, which is even more reason to Keep if true. Xcalibur (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh, really? Then surely you could link some of these articles about her.... (from mainstream RS remember, not blogs or fringe websites) ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Andrew Sullivan (3 August 2018). "When Racism Is Fit to Print". New York. Retrieved 6 August 2018. Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist? From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is.
  • Delete per
    WP:NAUTHOR; only the commotion caused by the revelation of her old tweets is notable. Of course, if we followed the Trump standard, the appropriate article name would be Racial views of Sarah Jeong, so that our beloved encyclopedia would finally have TWO people with an article dedicated to their "racial views". Not saying that I would support that either… Goose, meet gander. — JFG talk 16:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage per
    WP:GNG, and the BLP1E arguments above are unconvincing. This seems like a spite AfD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep plenty of coverage, this nom just serves to prove the things that she described in her book - some people in our society just want to purge all mentions of female heroines from the Internet. Openlydialectic (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
??? How does her notability or lack thereof have anything to do with her gender??? And which source called her a "female heroine"??? — JFG talk 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't wanna say it out loud because I don't want to offend anyone, but do you really think everyone in the world is compeltely impartial to ones gender? As for the second question, I wasn't referring to any source. I call her that. And many other people too. Openlydialectic (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Openlydialectic. However this user as a right of opinion, and I feel if JFG wants to open that discussion, JFG should go to that talk page and start a discussion. My comment was asked to be redacted for posting the opposite. I feel this is unfair because I didn't post anything hyperbolic like the person above us. JFG does have a decent question and you should be able to use a source or explain your personal logic NOT pointing out what others do. JFG you should go to the user page and start a conversation with, if not asked the comment to be redacted.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redacted for what? Are you delusional? Openlydialectic (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masem --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:GNG although the tweet situation is controversial but has had notable coverage her other work as an author/writer, and appointment to the NYT editorial board are independent qualifications for notability. Phil (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep known for more than this one event:journalism and her book; per Masem Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, being known for something isn't the same thing as meeting GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    She obviously meets GNG including the coverage of the twitter controversy and BLP1E doesn't apply because "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event."; they don't, there are sources covering her well before (even if they may not by themselves meet GNG) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. This AfD seems clearly biased and perhaps politically motivated. Proserpine (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some editors above complain about the massive attention the article has gotten, edit warring, etc. Unfortunately, the article has itself become a flash point in the news for alleged censorship of Wikipedia, as some editors are working to censor embarrassing material off the page, such as directly quoting the tweets. As painful as it may be, keeping all such reliably sourced, notable material is healthier in the long run. Don't delete or censor this article in a way that gives an appearance of favoring the political left. WP really should be apolitical, though it's pretty obvious that individual editors are not. Wookian (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Wikipedia is
    WP:NOTCENSORED. Xcalibur (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep because this article seems to be discrete. Abequinn14 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. Just some recent "news" stories about her, mostly on "social media". Not relevant in the long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.68.55 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG, and I wouldn't mind deleting all of the single-purpose accounts that have been showing up in order to treat Wikipedia as though it were Twitter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this person has heavy media coverage from major and reliable sources and is more than notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bridge over Fountain Creek (Manitou Avenue)

Bridge over Fountain Creek (Manitou Avenue) (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

(talk) 14:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I have a tendency to create articles for National Register of Historic Places listings in El Paso County, Colorado - so it must have been on that page at some point. It's fine with me if it's merged (due to its historical significance) into the Manitou Springs Historic District article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There are two bridges over Fountain Creek in the area with historic significance of some sort; a bridge over US 24 that's individually listed on the National Register, and this one. The original version of the article was still about this bridge, but included the NRHP listing information for the other bridge, which probably explains the confusion over whether this one was individually listed. At any rate, it's not, and there's nothing suggesting it shouldn't be merged into List of Manitou Springs Historic District buildings. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Fails
    WP:GNG, and merging with the Manitou Springs Historic District article seems the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Also, to treat this properly in the list-article item, I feel it needs to link in a "see also" way to the separately listed Bridge over Fountain Creek. Which did not yet have an article. So I started Bridge over Fountain Creek (U.S. Route 24) just now. Please anyone feel free to add to that (e.g. find and add historic HABS pictures about it), but I think it is okay as a stub article for now. --Doncram (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think the disambiguation between the two places perhaps should be improved. According to U.S. Route 24 in Colorado, the business route 24 is Manitou Avenue. So they are both on the same street. Disambiguating by street then doesn't seem so good. On Bridge over Fountain Creek disambiguation page, we have two items, with "(U.S. Route 24)" and one with "(Manitou Avenue)". Argh. What to do, if anything? --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918–38)

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 have nominated this article for deletion, though perhaps slightly hesitantly. I considered proposing a merger, but decided against it for the following reasons. Most importantly, the article is redundant.

This has been subjected to discussion previously, and most of the content has been moved to Sudeten Germans and Carpathian Germans, for Germans living in the Czech and Slovak parts of Czechoslovakia, respectively. There is also History of the Jews in Czechoslovakia and less notably, Zipser Germans
. The first two of these articles include a good portion on Germans in interwar Czechoslovakia, the Sudeten Germans article in particular.

Afterwards, the page became a simple redirect for a short period of time. Since then,

proposed to rebuild the article
based on the fact that there were other Germans and German-speaking people living in Czechoslovakia, which appears to be a solid point.

However, the article in its current state attests to the fact that this is more difficult than was thought. As of this moment, it consists mostly of census statistics masked as prose. Of the six sections, three consist of lists. One for education listing two universities, one for press (with only 2 out of 10 wikilinked and only 1 other wikilink-able), and one for notable people (already more substantially included in the Sudeten Germans article). Sections are rather short, and could hypothetically be merged into a single section. If this were the case, the sections in the other forks would still be bigger and more informative.

All in all, I see no reason to retain this article. There appears to be little to actually merge, since essentially nearly everything is already included in the aforementioned articles. --

talk) 00:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew Davidson. James500 (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per aforementioned comments and nomination. Good points on both sides are made, but they lean in favor of keeping the article. The article would definitely be more notable if it spanned longer than the 20-year period in between German invasions of the area.
    (click here if I screwed up stuff again) (edits) 09:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asturix

AfDs for this article:
Asturix (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)

First nomination resulted in deletion, while this article does appear to be an improvement (have not seen deleted version), none of the sources appear to be reliable since most of them are blogs and excluding that, the coverage seems to be purely local. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is credible article with independent third party references, including reviews in reliable sources. Meets
    WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as a part of free software, many Linux distributions have low reliable sources: there are almost none paper magazines, and the news sites are mostly online blogs and third-party pages. Thus, many free software could be mistaken as not
    AfD. [reply
    ]
I think you were looking for
WP:NSOFT. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly, thanks! —PaleoNeonate – 16:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clear.

Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The Internet of Garbage

The Internet of Garbage (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)

Shamelessly created to make a

WP:Point related to the ongoing Sarah Jeong controversy. Trying to manufacture notability for a subject. No coverage in reliable, prominent, mainstream secondary sources. Remember: "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." ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

N.B. The book (or ebook, I should say, it was never printed) isn't even available for purchase. Not listed anywhere. Not even an ISBN. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Did you read the the relevant notability guideline? It says "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." I count a potential one (Berkman Klein Center, if Youtube counts as a publication?). Can you cite any of the other criteria if fulfills? ("The book has won a major literary award. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.")ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 3, 7 and 9 meet the first criterion. That's sufficient by itself.
    talk) 14:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • talk) 15:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I was citing three references as in-depth, none of which were ZDNet. The numbers refer to this revision.
    talk) 15:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm sorry, but that post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you try writing it again? Can you quote what policy in
WP:BLOGS supports your claim? And what about Poland in 2016? ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If we did have a "rule" against offending other users, we'd neve get anything done! :D —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important comment The nominator has simply removed other people's comments as well as votes to keep the article, removed them from this very page. A few examples: [8], [9] Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with a deceptive edit summary to boot.
    talk) 16:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
My perception of a nom's motivation is probably somewhat determined by their later actions in the AfD. I'd actually challenge your "motivation not a deletion rationale" in some circumstances, but i am probably in mixed views on this particular one. In any case, we seem to be meeting SNOW standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs)
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. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time tracking primaERP

Time tracking primaERP (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)

Promotional article about a

WP:CORPDEPTH. Creator Fasakhov has no edits outside this topic. MER-C 13:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. It's a brochure. No evidence of notability.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steffany Mohan

Steffany Mohan (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 seem to meet criteria of Wikipedia notability per WP:GNG. She has done some podcasts but I'm not finding any significant discussion of her in independent reliable sources. Google search for name comes up with about 160 unique results, the majority of which are directory entries and that sort of thing. ... discospinster talk 13:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. GiantSnowman 14:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Printemps

* Withdraw: Subject played for

talk) 21:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


Shelby Printemps (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 soccer player. He is currently plays for

talk) 12:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 15:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert (band)

The Desert (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)

Current sourcing of the article includes two sources which don't even mention the article's subject. The third is a simple listing. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass

WP:BAND. Was speedied on August 3rd, and has now been quickly recreated. Onel5969 TT me 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 18:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dalil Deraâ

Dalil Deraâ (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)

According to official Olympic records (see here), this person was not on the 2008 Algerian women's volleyball team as claimed in the article. As she has no other claim to notability, she does not pass

WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete no evidence she competed in any Olympic games. Doesn't pass
WP:NSPORT GhostOrchid35 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Paul Sharma

Yash Paul Sharma (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)

Looks like failing

WP:ACADEMIC Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale

AfDs for this article:
Education Not for Sale (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 have concerns with the references used. For example https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf is a primary source written by the campaigner himself. The other two references https://web.archive.org/web/20070829054050/http://www.srcf.ucam.org/camens/ and https://archive.is/20061008073452/http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/sofiebuckland/#selection-463.51-463.113 are also primary sources and look to be blogs.

ping me) 11:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Similar request

ping me) 11:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually no. Shadow opened AFD 1. Since it was closed with a weak concensus ie with just one keep vote, he opened AFD 2 (at least I think that's the reason). That was swiftly kept. Then he opened the DRV without proper notifications. So I don't know there is a DRV and thus opened AFD 3. There were comments to opened up a DRV first so I closed AFD 3 as withdrawn and opened a DRV up. However, that too was closed after I found Shadow's DRV. And here we are. --
ping me) 06:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NORG. The Guardian source is an interview from a blog hosted on The Guardian. The second source is just their archived website and the third source is also a blog.  » Shadowowl | talk 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 21:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 01:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jose María del Río

Jose María del Río (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)

Probably this actor, whose credits don't satisfy

WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per

WP:CSD#A7 (non-administrator close). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Digital For The Planet

Digital For The Planet (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 evidence of notability, lots of (not properly cited) sources, that seem to be about what they're concerned with but not about them (but it is hard to tell what they are being used as cites for). Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
GameInfirmary Talk 12:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigmamsg 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit Social Center Tokyo

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

Fails

WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A church ministry with only four staff is unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass GNG Chetsford (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce L. Olsen

Bruce L. Olsen (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)

Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet

WP:BASIC. Most of the sources in the article are primary, which do not establish notability. North America1000 01:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the person who nominated this article for deltion, I have a copy of J. B. Haws Oxford University Press published The Mormon Image in the American Mind. That book devotes a whole 5 pages to significant discussion of Olseon's impact on LDS public relations. I think this is enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC does not state that only one source is needed if it's content about a subject is substantial at all, not even in the slightest. Notice how the lead of the section states that multiple sources are required. This also pertains to point #1 of the section. Point #1 of WP:BASIC is intended to be used when two or more sources exist that provide a typically lower depth of coverage, whereby they can be combined to demonstrate notability. The lead information and point #1 of WP:BASIC is listed verbatim below, with the exception of the bold emphasis I have added, to emphasize "multiple", which means two or more. North America1000 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.


  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
  • Comment -- The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether it is verified by multiple sources. I norm ally refrain from voting on LDS AFDs. In this case the source is a book from a leading UK academic publisher. In devoting a number of pages to the subject, it will inevitably have multiple sources. This is not a case where we have snippets from a couple of newspapers or websites of dubious reliability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Given the few actual !votes, despite good discussion, I think a relist is warranted.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I'm not convinced that being managing director of public affairs of the Mormon Church is notable enough to warrant an article. The public affairs position isn't mentioned at all in the LDS article, so it's unclear how significant it is to hold that title. The single book used for sourcing seems like it would be a better prospect for an article, but it's still only one source, as discussed above. Absent other sourcing, this fails
      WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Enigmamsg 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arts Academy Charter Middle School

    Arts Academy Charter Middle School (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)

    Unreferenced article on a middle school. Does not pass

    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or GNG. Wolfson5 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Disagreement re delete/merge warrants a relist, additionally, please remember to provide !vote justifications
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. as is standard practice. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I only suggested Merge as there was no education section in the Salisbury article and it could be mentioned there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No indications of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Oliver D. Crisp. Sandstein 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Analytic Theology

    Journal of Analytic Theology (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable, relatively new, journal. Not indexed in any selective databases. Does not meet

    WP:GNG." DePRODded with reason "im contesting deletion since several editors per the history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journal_of_Analytic_Theology&action=history have tried improving, copyediting, sourcing, if you still feel otherwise you may renominate for deletion, thank you" (one of the stranger de-PROD reasons I have encountered, this goes for 99% of all PRODded articles...). No changes to the article were made, so PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 13:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: The Keep !votes could use notability-related justifications. However a relisting was in order due to a balance between relisting and deletion.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the editor as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Enigmamsg 18:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Kar Har Maidaan Fateh

    Kar Har Maidaan Fateh (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 song does not satisfy any of the criteria mentioned for

    WP:BOLD because creator (Ayush Gupta At Wikipedia) is singer's fan and indulges into edit warring per past experience. - Vivvt (Talk) 18:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: In the case of specific disputes on a notability guideline, please remember to cite the specific criteria and why/why not it applies
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: (With a nod to the previous relist note)
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tee Ali Arabmoney

    Tee Ali Arabmoney (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 individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. References are unrelated, do not mention subject, or are press releases. reddogsix (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Please indicate how the individual meets the
      WP:N criteria. The individual lacks in-depth, non-trivial support. The "References" are single line mentions at best and the award was for his models, not the individual. This is far from a notable individual and smacks of advertising. reddogsix (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Unnecessary repeating his comment while subject is notable and have reliable resources.
      XfD. [reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this again, but could both sides (though especially the !Keep voters) please provide justifications in their !votes
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the sources in the article and why they don't meet
      WP:GNG
      :
      1. The Sun: Not
        significant coverage
        . Passing mention. Article is about someone else.
      2. SoundCloud: Not
        independent
        . Listings of person's music.
      3. Philly.com: Not significant. Passing mention. Article is about someone else.
      4. Women4Africa Blog: Not significant or
        reliable
        : Blog post with passing mention.
      5. Dailymotion: Not significant or independent. Video showing people affiliated with person.
      6. BellaNaija: Not significant or reliable. Blog post that doesn't even mention the person.
      7. YouTube: Not significant or independent. Video showing people affiliated with person.
      8. Afro Model Awards: Not significant. Award listing for Afro Model Awards, an award that isn't prestigious enough to confer notability on the person.
    Sources not cited in the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 23:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. the sources are mostly listings, and not al lthe material is verifiable. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment just mentioning that The Sun is definitely not a reliable source, it's a tabloid of the worst type with a reputation well below the Daily Mail, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    VMmanager

    VMmanager (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 notable. Doesn't meet

    WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage from reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 19:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 19:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, those sources wouldn't prove the product's notability, since
      reliable sources. The non-blacklisted sites could be used to support the article content (when better sources aren't available), but they won't do much in this AfD discussion because they're not reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 08:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Got a bunch of scholar hits, but they're not talking about this particular piece of software (rather they're just using camel case to refer to a generic class, but that's beside the point). The search results are further confused by the existence of an "Oracle VMManager". One passing mention in "searchservervirtualization.techtarget.com" and no other sources lead me to conclude the software isn't notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No apparent coverage in sources other than the usual man pages and marketing. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. None of the !votes argue for keeping this article, but there is no consensus on whether this should be merged into the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? article. Whether or not such a merge is desirable can be discussed on the talk page of that article. I am therefore closing this as redirect, leaving the article history intact in case a merge is deemed desirable. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    50–50 (game show)

    50–50 (game show) (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 an obscure short-run Italian game show has been unsourced since 2014. I can find no mainline sourcing for it, and the Italian Wikipedia version only includes links to two Italian TV blogs. In short, I cannot establish the notability of this one under

    WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: It was suggested that this article be taken to AfD at the Naming conventions (television) Talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Klaudia Rynkowska

    Klaudia Rynkowska (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)

    It does not meet Wikipedia's nobility guideline. Its too vague

    talk) 14:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Her victory at the III Edition Poland Cup might make her pass
      talk) 04:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    There are several problems with your claims. First, there's no evidence that III Poland Cup is the same as the Polish national championships. Second, Poland did not qualify a full women's team for the 2000 or 2004 Summer Olympics. There was only 1 Polish female gymnast at the 2000 Olympics (
    Joanna Skowranska whose best finish was 74th on the uneven bars) and none at the 2004 Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As I pointed out above, she does not meet
      WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Police station. Yunshui 雲水 13:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Police office

    Police office (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)

    DICDEF, not all general terms for police jurisdictions and subdivisions are notable. Cites no sources. Vague title. Even when the term "police office" is used online, it isn't in this way.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 04:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Both this and police detachment satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. There might be scope for merger with similar units, such as precinct or station, but this is obviously notable. This article is certainly capable of being expanded beyond a definition. If you search for "police office shall" or "police office may" and cognate expressions such as "must" for example, you find a considerable body of legislation from several countries relating to how the law requires a police office to be run. There is also a lot of commentary in treatises etc. Likewise on a search for "police office"+magistrate. The expression "police office" does seem to be a term of art. James500 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to Police station. The article is virtually empty, so there's nothing in the edit history worth preserving. Reyk YO! 13:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - (to Police station) This is an unwarranted article that currently doesn't have independent notability and is a duplicative CONTENTFORK. I can't see why there are delete !votes that say no redirect. It is a possible search term, no damage is inflicted, and as the cliche goes - redirects are cheap. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Rough consensus to keep.

    (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Home Energy Resources Unit

    Home Energy Resources Unit (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)

    Essentially,

    WP:TOOSOON. There are certainly reliable sources, but it seems to me that this is basically a singly flurry of interest in something that may or may not become truly notable in the future. TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The BBC article and Reuters report, both cited in the article, taken together would seem to meet
      WP:TOOSOON would not apply in that case. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    It clearly applies as the articles are merely about a prototype. It may not work as promised or for whatever reason may never go into production.
    YO 😜 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom
      YO 😜 04:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    WP:GNG
    it won't stop being notable; therefore, what we need to discuss are the sources. I suppose it'll be kind of hypocritical for me not to offer my analysis when I'm asking the delete !voters to do so though, so I'll go first:
    • BBC Article (April 4), by BBC Science Correspondent David Gregory-Kumar. Although it's been called a blog by Gregory-Kumar (see vid. below), I'm fairly sure the BBC retains final editorial control. It isn't that long, at 500 words, but since the whole article is about our subject, supplemented by the video below, I think it meets the requirements as our first reliable source.
    • YouTube Video appears to be a copy of an official BBC Midlands segment, again by Gregory-Kumar. ~3 minutes long, divided approximately into 1 each of the inventor demonstrating the prototype, Gregory-Kumar explaining the mechanisms at the workshop and the host and Gregory-Kumar discussing the potential economic impact at the studio. This is the same source as above, and together I feel it firmly represents significant coverage by one source.
    • Reuters Video (July 2, Matthew Stock) is a lot shorter, only 1:59 – though my initial concerns as to its sharing footage with the BBC video don't appear to be a problem: on review, the camera angle of BBC footage doesn't seem to be the same and cutting out Gregory-Kumar shouldn't produce that perspective. I think it does have the same footage as another source though. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage
    • VoA Video (July 14, Julie Taboh) Same thing, slightly longer at 2:18. This is the source that I think shares footage with the Reuters video. The only reason I'm mentioning it as well is because the main content of both seems to be the dubbed voice over, and not the original track from the footage. Honestly, I can't quite put a name to the format (a sort of mini-documentary thing?) but it seems like pretty standard journalism from reliable sources. Possible issues: Independence (as a distinct source), depth of coverage
    • YouTube Video (July 5, Martyn Andrews) This is from the verified RT UK YouTube channel, and while RT has been criticized on neutrality, this being relatively apolitical I think it should be considered reliable. It's longer segment, close to 4 minutes, also covering how it works and links to economic implications. Possible issues: Reliability (as a potentially biased source)
    • Daily Mail Article (May 9, Claire Duffin) I think this is slightly less in depth than any of the above sources, but no other issues stand out. Overall, it should make a good supplementary source. Possible issues: Depth of coverage
    There are of course other sources, both already cited and not, but on initial evaluation, they look to be of lesser reliability and I don't think they will be used to establish notability, though they are decent supplementary sources for confirmation and support. Interestingly, it appears to have recently achieved some international coverage, though I can't read Vietnamese that well and don't feel confident assessing that source, so I will also avoid trying to use that to assert notability. Overall, I think that the subject of the article does meet GNG and cannot be deleted per TOOSOON, but I am open to striking my !vote should the delete rationale be revised.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it a notable prototype you ask? No, not at this point. That there are articles about the prototype does not equal GNG. In fact, there are very few articles. If this were truly a revolutionary idea that is likely to have real impact, I would expect much more significant coverage and frequent updates about the status of the project, including investors lining up and studies on practicality, feasibility, and sustainability. We would have dozens of separate, independently researched articles by now. The fact that one of your sources is the Daily Mail (which mainly just recycles other content from legitimate sources) is an indication there is a serious lack of coverage.
    YO 😜 17:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:SIGCOV.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    For the reasons I stated, there is insufficient coverage to meet
    YO 😜 00:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:ORGCRIT? Another guideline or essay? I understand that there are issues with the article, but I don't know which ones you think justify deletion, and the discussion is unlikely to progress unless you elaborate a bit more on your rationale.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The Cube Root Of Infinity (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I felt the BBC and Reuters reporting were the best
    WP:RS. The other sources are useful if they have information those two don't, but aren't really that great for establishing notability. I think the Local Gov citation is interesting though, and if anyone knows more about its circulation and reliability (is it a sort of official thing?), that would be great.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Keep – The topic meets
      WP:GNG, as per having received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the sources are more independent than others, but overall, meets GNG. North America1000 02:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Maengmum (given name)

    Maengmum (given name) (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)

    It's a nickname, not a given name. As far as I know, we don't maintain anthroponymy pages for nicknames. Paul_012 (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 13:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Johan Engholm

    Johan Engholm (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 unreferenced stub since 2006. Swedish version is identical. » Shadowowl | talk 09:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I expanded the article a bit and added references that speak of Engholm's guns as rare and valued by collectors. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Mystery Case Files: Fate's Carnival

    Mystery Case Files: Fate's Carnival (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)

    Searches did not turn up nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes

    WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:12, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 22:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 22:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    List of notable fighting dogs

    List of notable fighting dogs (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)

    Entirely unsourced; the "Sporting Dog Journal" linked doesn't appear to be the illicit one used by dog-fighters. A ridiculous list; none of the dogs have Wikipedia entries (nor should they).

    π, ν) 02:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The Sporting Dog Journal is well known and has been around for a long time. A description of the point system is at the top of the article. Articles for some of the fighting dogs will follow shortly. Why do you feel notable and famous dogs should not be included in Wikipedia. As you see many are already in Wikipedia: Category:Dog monuments, Lists of dogs, etc. IQ125 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Unsourced, meaningless except to those who already know what it means, an "in-universe" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    GameInfirmary Talk 02:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep: None of us like dog fighting, but we have to accept that it did happen in the past and continues to happen now. These fighting dogs were all recognized by the Sporting Dog Journal and graded on a merit system. Many of these dogs are quite notable as they are the progenitor bloodlines for dogs that are being bred today as peoples pets and some unfortunately for dog fighting. Wikipedia should not delete a list or article because the topic is not pleasant. I believe the list will expand and some of the dogs will have articles written about them as there is a significant amount of information to support an article. IQ125 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. Is The Sporting Dog Journal a reliable source? No. Is this point system used by anybody other than the journal? Who knows. There's so little context I can't even tell if these are modern dogs or from when this was tolerated. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. One of the dumbest articles I've ever read. Absolutely no evidence of notability. A list of meaningless stats and fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The SDJ is clearly not an RS. (Tangentially, get a load of their disclaimer. Note the invocation of their "Fifth Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression"—the right to incriminate themselves, evidently.)
    Looking for other sources to satisfy
    List of dog fighting breeds. A book-length RS treatment of status and fighting dogs does not include names, let alone lists, of famous or (grand) champion individuals [16]. The British Parliament in the 18th century seems to have produced a report briefly discussing "famous fighting dogs, and their value," but I can't find it and it wouldn't be sufficiently general or up-to-date. Overall, the topic of famous individual fighting dogs fails LISTN and GNG, regardless of dogfighting's legality or WP editors' opinions about it. FourViolas (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    heres a book that appears to include information about famous fighting dogs - Thirty Years with Fighting Dogs, but it may be more appropriate to included it in a "Further reading" section of Dog fighting in the United States. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree—as with the 1700s British Parliamentary report on dog fighting, this out-of-print 1935 U.S. book could have relevant material but isn't going to be general enough to support an encyclopedia-quality standalone list of famous individual dogs. FourViolas (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 14:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus. Some people felt that the sources added during the AfD were sufficient, but there's no clear agreement on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince Rafael of Orléans-Braganza

    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's the prince in the line of succession of a throne that does not exist anymore since 1889. The article about him was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. The only source is about the death of his brother, not him. Anyway, in Brazil the former Imperial Family is not that popular, and it usually barely receive some coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. That's why current members of the family are usually deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese: because they are actually not notable. Bolhones (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose He is the last remaining, acknowledged male
      Pedro II, is still widely revered for his model constitutionalism and his dynasty's unpopular but principled opposition to Brazilian slavery, is not so distantly in the past as to merit being forgotten or ignored, whatever Portuguese Wikipedia's handling of it may be. FactStraight (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not write off a person simply because they are heir to a "defunct throne". Wikipedia has dozens of articles on heirs to defunct thrones, particularly regarding German and French royal persons. 08:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Emily Khine (talk)
    • Keep after improvement and additions of new sources by Eastmain and other contributors. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment we generally do keep articles on people in the direct line of succession to being the pretender to "prominent" monarchies. That said, references like [17] are almost worse than having no references at all.
      π, ν) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The FAZ reference is the only good secondary source, and multiple such sources are generally required to show notability. I'm not convinced there is enough evidence at the moment, although something may exist out there in the Portuguese language. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep after improvements and sourcing improvements. Subject appears to meet
      WP:GNG. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 12:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Politics And War

    Politics And War (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)

    A web-browser based game. Article is only sourced to the game itself, and I have not found significant coverage in secondary sources.

    π, ν) 01:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_August_6&oldid=1142224133"