Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 February 6

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph School, Gagalangin

St Joseph School, Gagalangin (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)

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable parochial school. Not even a high school, per se, so no claim to inherent notability. No info online, except some photos on Facebook. Quis separabit? 23:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. How did this stub last for over 11 years without a single reference? Reviewing its history, it was pure
  WP:PROMO. I searched online, found no evidence of notability. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  talk) 16:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - It appears that
  csdnew 12:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 14 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Communist League of Saint Petersburg, Florida

Communist League of Saint Petersburg, Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article, largely sourced to Facebook and Twitter, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Sources pointed to FB, Twitter and related primary source. Fails
  talk) 16:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No useful sources in the article, and my own searching came up with nothing better. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:24, 14 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ridgely Nicholas

Elizabeth Ridgely Nicholas (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 a appear to be a notable person as required by

• Delete The article is not cited and actually contains false information. The first sentence of the article says "Elizabeth Ridgely Nicholas was responsible for the creation of Douglass College at Rutgers University." That's not true,
  Rusf10 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

CommentWouldn't it be possible to verify by doing a cursory check and providing citations???Djflem (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete- Looks like another RAN COPYVIO, see [2]--
  Rusf10 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails GNG L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Barely notable, I couldn't find any sources about her that will merit an encyclopedia entry. In addition, the utter false information in the lead section and being created by serial copyright violator means this has no place here –Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. No sources show notability. Easily fails
  WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Douglass Residential College, for which she was partially responsible for development.Djflem (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)^[1][2][reply]

^[3]

Those are Wikipedia mirrors and a primary source. Mattg82 (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't merge anything. If Biography fails Notability no need of any merge. The above sources are unreliable Wikipedia mirrors and primary source.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nicholas Residence Hall". is not a mirror and says, among other things that Nicholas "one of the pioneers responsible for the development of the college", which would add to history of the development of the college, wouldn't it?Djflem (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Djflem (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete News search results turn up single source, which is this AfD subject itself... Burroughs'10 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the position is no where close to making on notable, and the coverage is abysmally far from making notability. I understand the desire to avoid presentism on Wikipedia, but we should not do so by creating sub-par articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 13 February 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. AFD started by a block evader and all subsequent delete comments are from socks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Campaign Headquarters

Conservative Campaign Headquarters (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)

Delete as no sources which actually prove the existence of the claimed building. Lack of sources within article, which also means it is doubtable and unverified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't understand the gist of this nomination. Substantial content in the article is accompanied by apparently valid citations, and ample sources can be found to further verify that the Conservative Campaign Headquarters is in fact located in Matthew Parker Street. A few examples: "David Cameron delivered a celebratory speech to the jubilant staff of Conservative campaign headquarters, at 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster." (2017); "The Conservatives' campaign headquarters has flooded" at "Conservative Campaign HQ, located near the Houses of Parliament on Matthew Parker Street in Westminster" (2016); "A five minute walk from Parliament lies the Conservative Campaign Headquarters – known to all inside the party as 'CCHQ'. Arranged over the basement and ground floor of No. 4 Matthew Parker Street, Westminster, this was the nerve centre from which Lynton Crosby ran the election campaign.} (2015); and most basically the official website contact info. Can the nomination be clarified?--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response:This is a valid point, but the article page is not just of the building, but it is ABOUT it (parlicularly the 'campaigning' section, but also the infobox, which contains references which are poorly sourced and thus constitutes speculation. Further, none of the articles are particularly recent. 151.231.12.99 (talk)

What does the recency of the articles have to do with anything? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThe recency of the articles indicates whether the content of the article is still valid but I see your point sir. Historic articles can be valid, but must class themselves as such and not puport to be current articles as this article does by use of present tense verbs and participles in the article in question. Merge & Redirect to Conservative Party (UK) may be a better option? What do you think, or anyone else who wishes to contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.12.99 (talk)

If something needs updating then you add Template:Update, you don't start a process to delete over 200 edits spanning 14 years. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response age is irrelevant, it is quality that is important. And this article lacks it. Many of the edits also appear to be Sockpuppets - not all, but a significant number, which leads me to also suspect it of Category:Articles with a promotional tone breach, as suggested if you read lots of parts of the article. 151.231.12.99 (talk)

The edits by the sockpuppets have been reverted, don't you worry about that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It isn't a building (and the article makes that clear), it's a function. That function has gone through at least two names, and several physical addresses. All of which are adequately sourced and easily sourcable to anyone who wants to extend this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response

G11 151.231.12.99 (talk

)

• What part fails NPOV? And why would that be a reason for deletion, rather than fixing it by editing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response*Campaigning section is promotional and in breach of

Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION above, heightened by it being largely (if not entirely) unsourced - only sources are linkedin profiles of staff there which makes it more promotional! Location section is also not from a neutral point of view, as it appears to point to its advantages of the building 151.231.12.99 (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Response Not a single one of the sources in the 'Campaigning' section of the article are LinkedIn profiles of staff. The sources that are LinkedIn profiles of staff are the list of key staff in the infobox. 'Campaigning' section includes 16 distinct sources, three of which are national media articles. Saying that the mention in the 'Location' section of it being close to Parliament is a breach of NPOV is stretching credibility. Mauls (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: the subject is notable (as evidenced by the sources from mainstream media), the article has multiple reliable sources, including recent sources. The claims made in the nomination above about the state of the article can be seen to be patently false (there were many sources within the article at the point of nomination). Mauls (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable subject, especially under its former name, Conservative Central Office. Numerous references,. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 7 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gudinva Saloh

Gudinva Saloh (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 politician at best, hoax at worst. All provided online references are either dead links or do not mention the subject. Searching for the subject online reveals nothing except mirrors of this article and of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I get the same lack of hits for his name (and still only 32 hits if you search only "Gudinva"!) Other people were Minister for Water and Sanitation and Minister for Agriculture and Immigration (which the article originally said) at the time. Links at Talk:Gudinva Saloh § Hoax. I can't verify that Saloh exists. Mortee (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Being a cabinet minister in a national government is certainly a valid notability claim in principle, but the condition is that we have to be able to properly
  WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I have no opinion on whether this is a hoax, but certainly the utter dearth of sources providing any coverage suggests the topic lacks any notability whatsoever. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 7 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

60 Bizarre wars, battles and weapons of history (book)

60 Bizarre wars, battles and weapons of history (book) (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 is about a self-published e-book from CreateSpace and is sourced entirely to its Amazon listing and possibly written by the contributor of this article. A BEFORE search fails to find sufficient additional sources to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Chetsford. No substantial references to
  notability are presented, and I found none in a Google search. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable at all. Not shown to be a
  WP:RS source. Self-promo. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No sign of notability is shown and article is basically a description of structure of the book. As per the comments above this comes across as an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a publication. Dunarc (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. --Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete-unless we are to make an article for everything Buzzfeed publishes as well ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:02, 12 February 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.

John Allen Hendricks

John Allen Hendricks (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 GNG,

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As you know, I am new to editing and creating wiki articles; this was one of two articles that I created and I have frequently returned to it to learn the editing process. I felt comfortable editing something that I created rather than disturb someone else's work while I learned. But, I have enjoyed making many minor edits to many other wiki articles. I modeled this article on the following: Yahya R. Kamalipour, Christopher H. Sterling, and Michael C. Keith (other communication studies scholars). And, I tried to improve this article over those examples as some of them do not even have sources. While I know your decision to delete this article rather than help correct it has already been made on your part, I will still address your concerns. Regarding notability for academics, this individual meets far more than one of the criteria listed in WP:Academic/WP:NProf. He has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level as noted in the article from the National Communication Association. He held the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic society, the Broadcast Education Association which has more than 2,000 international educators as members. And, his research has had a significant impact on his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There are many citations listed in the article of reviews of his work that speak highly of the work's contributions. Regarding his h-index of 8 on google scholar, that is a significant ranking for his discipline of communication. Wikipedia's own article on h-indices observes that "The h-indices for ("full") professors, based on Google Scholar data ranged from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography." Lastly, unless the professor does something scandalous he/she does not receive [media] coverage about themselves -- they are not celebrities. Rather, they are called upon by the media as experts about their areas of study (not about themselves). And, this individual has indeed been cited in numerous American national media outlets ranging from NBC News, FOX, and Congressional Quarterly magazine. His work has been recognized by American national media. Respectfully. Updater500 (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the National Communication Association’s Applied Research Division’s 2011 Distinguished Edited Book Award is NPROF(2). Regarding whether a one year term as president of Broadcast Education Association ([3]) meets NPROF(6) - I will let more experienced academic !votes weigh in.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a follow-up, the National Communication (along with its divisions) is the largest scholarly organization in the communication discipline. It publishes 11 scholarly journals and is highly respected in the discipline of communication and media studies. NPROF2 specifically states: "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige also can be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." Regarding the Broadcast Education Association presidency, the BEA president only serves one year. Prior to serving as president of BEA, the president has already held the roles of Vice President of Academic Affairs, Secretary/Treasurer, and member of the Board of Directors. In total, it takes 8-9 years of service on the BEA Board of Directors to become the president. It's not just a "one year" term. Also, regarding your earlier reference to the google scholar h-index, the Wikipedia WP:Academic entry cautions: " For books, the coverage in Google Scholar is partly through Google Book Search, and is very strongly influenced by publisher's permissions and policies. Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability." Updater500 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to show how NPROF(1) is met The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.? Yes, google's h-index isn't perfect - e.g. not finding citations in books. However he does have a verified account and his books are attributed to him on scholar, and it doesn't appear that they are widely cited in journal articles. Not every professor is notable - you need to show significant impact.Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NPROF(1)-- As you probably know, WP:ACADEMIC states that (1) can be met in various ways. Worldcat lists the individual's books in more than 3,300 libraries. Note that WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF states: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and Google Scholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied." Further, Wikipedia states: "Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. To count towards satisfying Criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books." The article cites those peer reviewed publications of this individual's work. Again, regarding your references to the h-index, WP:PROF guidelines state: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." He has met more than one to meet the NPROF(1). Updater500 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator claimed that the subject's work, which is what his notability is based on rather than his inside-leg measurement or his favourite colour, is not "a subject of much beyond book reviews". That is simply a statement that it is not a subject of anything beyond the best possible sources for establishing notability per
  WP:AUTHOR. We don't expect politicians to be the subject of sources that are not about politics, or musicians to be the subject of sources that are not about music, so why introduce this ridiculous bar to authors that sources about their writing should be excluded? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Berezikova

Julia Berezikova (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)

Fighter does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 07:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per
  WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:GNG. --IndyNotes (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Request I would appreciate it if the editors who said that
  WP:GNG is met would please show the specific sources that show there are multiple significant independent reliable sources that cover her. I'm seeing lots of routine sports coverage of her fights, but that's not enough to show notability. She doesn't meet any SNG criteria, so her notability depends on meeting the GNG. Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as per nominator - GNG is not met.PRehse (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:GNG. She was one of the leader of the Anti-Maidan movement. She's mentioned as one of the organizers by the Economist[4]. Here's another article referring to her as one of the Anti-Maidan organizers - it only lists three organizers, and she's one of the ones mentioned [5]. The article states that the leaders are "comprised of a medley of high-profile politicians, Cossacks, soldiers who have fought with pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine, and patriotic personalities including minor celebrities". Seeing as she doesn't fit any of the other categories, it's pretty safe to assume that she is, at worst, a "minor celebrity" in Russia. Also referred to here as one of the celebrities linked to the Anti-Maidan movement. "Berezikova, one of the main Russian celebrities featured in the group, is a decorated sambo, boxing, and judo champion, as well as one of Russia's pioneers in WMMA." [6] She's a celebrity in Russia, one of Russia's pioneers in WMMA, and notable enough to be referenced in multiple articles as one of the leading organizers of the Anti-Maidan movement. Fraenir (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Plenty of Russian news hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Having coverage doesnt not mean notable even the coverage are from reliable source. Being in a movement/as a member in an organisation doesnt translate to being notable.
  talk) 10:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep According to
  WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please re-read

WP:NMMA - it is three top tier fights - she has none.PRehse (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Berezikova is a champion in Judo, Boxing, Wushu, Sambo and Muay Thai.[1] She is an athlete with a significant fan base. She is a W5 World Champion. These wins and the significant coverage about her indicate she's notable enough for an entry. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Fraenir. GuzzyG (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She doesn't meet the notability criteria for any of the martial arts. There's no evidence of any significant titles in any of her combat sports. She's not even mentioned as a judoka at judoinside.com so there's no evidence of any widely recognized championship. Having said all that, I do believe there's enough to show she meets
  WP:GNG--and that's all that really matters. Papaursa (talk) 01:50, 12 February 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. Much obliged to Mortee ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Penny floater

Penny floater (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)

Unclear whether term exists

Besides the article having collected quite a bit of nonsense, none of the claims in it are references. But that's not even the main issue: my main problem is I cannot establish whether that term even exists. When searching ngram search there is no evidence for that term that predates this article. Also I couldn't find any web sources predating the usage of this term.

So if that is a proper term, then I will gladly retract my suggestion to delete the term. --denny vrandečić (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best I could quickly find that isn't twitter or a wiki-mirror is this book, but it doesn't seem very serious and only uses the term in passing. It might be a real term, but it's very hard to find. Chris857 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That book is from 2011, Wikipedia 'introduced' the term in 2006, so it could easily have come from Wikipedia. Is there any indication for the term before Wikipedia? --denny vrandečić (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in

talk) 05:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - the term definitely exists, it was used when I was a kid in the 1990s for a cheap plastic football. However, as much as I like to be nostalgic, this is certainly non-notable. As most a redirect to Ball (association football) (as a possible search term) could be considered. GiantSnowman 09:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see at least the term itself exists and wasn't invented. --denny vrandečić (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I kinda agree with a redirect however I think maybe to Football (ball) might be more appropriate that the association page. Govvy (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I submitted the article to AfD originally, but given the work that User:Mortee put into it, I have changed my mind and vote for keep. The article now cites sources, and we found a few mentions older than the Wikipedia article, so I am fine with keeping it. Thanks for the work! --denny vrandečić (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm really borderline on this one, so apologies for the long message. It's a very common object known by several names. That suggests notability to me, but because they're cheap, ubiquitous and generic there's not a lot to say about them, and little in-depth coverage accordingly—not enough to very clearly meet the GNG. I added sources to the article, the most substantial being [7]. Here are some passing mentions of "penny floater" just for reassurance about that particular term: [8], [9], [10], [11]. I don't see any need to find examples of use from pre-2006. It would be surprising for an obscure Wikipedia article to have introduced it into such natural usage and casual online text has a tendency to rot away over that timescale. (As an aside, the term "penny swerver", deleted from the article earlier, seems to also exist but be local to Sutton Coldfield [12]). There's enough here that it's better than a Wiktionary entry, and no other article yet mentions it so I wouldn't want to simply delete or redirect. I'd argue merge, but it's much too specific for ball and Football (ball) is quite solidly about balls used for professional sports and their near equivalents. Adding the penny floater detail there would be a little awkward imho. Still, that's definitely option B. For option A I vote keep as a low-value but harmless article about a common phenomenon. Denny you're very welcome Mortee (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mortee: I have no strong opinion or stake here, but your additions have improved the article significantly. Thank you. Chris857 (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant improvements by Mortee. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep After the initial nomination on January 23rd, numerous sourced edits indicate passable notability as a concept subject. Burroughs'10 (talk) 19:33, 12 February 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.

Scrappy Little Nobody

Scrappy Little Nobody (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)

Panned, minor book by otherwise notable person. Delete it and add a sentence to the main article. Anmccaff (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep While I'm sympathetic to the nomination, I think it's been covered enough for its own article. Besides the links already included, there's http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/what-we-learned-from-anna-kendricks-memoir.html, https://www.vogue.com/article/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-interview, https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/11/14/anna-kendrick-scrappy-little-nobody-filmmaking-process-vs-writing-process/93794118/, and others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as article creator), per
  WP:NB. The book "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", in this case one of the listed options, "reviews". These reviews, already referenced in the article, as far as I can tell, have not been sponsored in any way by the author or publisher. Additionally, the "other considerations" all fall in favor or neutral for the book. I will grant that there is not much material to be quickly located, but I believe there is more that could be written about this book. Besides, "too short" is not a reason in and of itself to delete. ⁓ Hello71 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd say "too short" is a very strong reason to delete, if the same material all also belongs in the author's own page. Having the same info in two places is not a service to the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Enough coverage to make it 'notable'. Can be expanded using the available sources - whether it can be expanded enough to justify a standalone article rather than a merge to Anna Kendrick remains to be determined. --Michig (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Michig says: notability has been established here, and thus deletion (and its concomitant deletion of edit history) would be inappropriate. But that keep result does not preclude the interested editors from discussing a further editorial decision to merge the brief book coverage article back into the main bio article until such time as it has been expanded sufficiently to support a separate article about the book. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes
  WP:NBOOK and no-one has mentioned any policy-based reasons for deletion. A negative review (and I would call it only somewhat negative rather than a panning) of a book is is not a reason for deletion of the article and neither is being a short article. I would support merging the article (in its current state) if such a merger were proposed. Meters (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep No policy-based reasons for deletion and notable enough to keep. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect- I think I'm outnumbered, but no reason this could not be redirected to Kendrick's page.. reviews of a book are not useful content without any other identifiable information on the book. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:05, 12 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jayaraj Warrier

Jayaraj Warrier (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)

Could not find any significant coverage. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per substantial covering including thr Entertainment Times reporting that "At one point of time, no stage show was complete without a caricature show by Jayaraj Warrier where he mimicked politicians, literary figures and film personalities, in the context of the current social and political happenings." FloridaArmy (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not able to find
  WP:SIGCOV, only some passing mentions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes
  WP:ENT as prolific contributions to his art, does have some rs coverage such as Times of India Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete -- does not meet
  WP:NACTOR as all roles appear to be minor. A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per K.e.coffman above.
  talk|c|em) 09:32, 9 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Issa

Abe Issa (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)

Borderline puff-piece on local (Ft. Worth) businessman; arguments for notability are weak; how many thousands of these people have been in some "40 under 40 to watch" article and never panned out as actual notables? Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There x under x lists are all the rage, but they are not the type of award that makes someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 9 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon D'Lima

Simon D'Lima (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)

Principal of local school. Nothing in coverage. Fails

• Delete Non notable.scope_creep (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete-moot point now, but I would have CSDed this guy ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:03, 12 February 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Whitehead

Luke Whitehead (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 college basketball player. Played on various minor-league teams after college but never suited up for an NBA team. Played a total of 21 minutes in one season for a German league pro team. Also fails general notability guidelines. Last played in 2009, unlikely to become any more notable. Rockypedia (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He actually meets
  WP:NBASKETBALL having played in the Australian National Basketball League. But I would also argue he meets GNG (even if barely) with articles like this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - He meets
  ULEB Cup [13] and in 27 games (22 starts) combined in the Basketball Bundesliga regular season and playoffs[14]. Dammit_steve (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he appears to meet the
  WP:NBASKETBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep NBL players meet
  WP:NBASKETBALL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 February 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.

Hankyungoh (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)

Extremely limited, if not non-existent, sources attest to the "fact" (if we can call it that) that Hankyongoh exists as a neologism in South Korea. The page also contains a criticisms section that is not backed up by any sources, Korean or otherwise, making this a borderline attack page against the three newspapers. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Media of South Korea. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 06:03, 13 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lizq

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

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

article created by the author of the sources. fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - did you perform
  WP:BEFORE? There are references to the site here, here, here, and here - I found these in about 5 seconds on Google Books, where a query for Lizq Oman returns over 11k hits. Parsecboy (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Parsecboy's comment and my reasoning at
  WP:AGF malfunction here. – Joe (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per the sources found by Parsecboy. It appears the nom didn't bother with
  WP:GNG only requires the existence of reliable sources, not that they already be placed in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Blind nomination without appropriate checking. Article is full of academically published sources. And arch site is geographic feature same how we accept hamlets and villages with only one source. This is perfectly acceptable artice. Proper
  WP:BEFORE will have prevent this misnomination of article with this multiple solid references. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. Plenty of good mentions in books. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:53, 11 February 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.

PLANWEL

PLANWEL (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)

Nothing significant in

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman

Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman (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 was created by the author of one of the sources. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The author (
  on faith. My mistake. This source is available online (behind a paywall) and includes several pages on this site. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi this is a source that was written by the creator of the article himself. GNG requires multiple reliable sources. I could find nothing else concerning this site that attests to its notability. This seems like a case refspam which specifically says "Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work". Dom from Paris (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the author is an established expert in the field, as well as the main investigator of this site, so there is no reason to discount papers written by him. That particular source was published in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley–Blackwell. There are more sources cited in the article, which are less easy to verify, but which I see no reason to question. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the German language source (the only other that is not written by the article creator) there is no mention of this site unless it has another name in German. In a before search I found nothing on this subject. If it is notable should there not be more sources than those written by the person that discovered the site? I may have totally misunderstood the idea of refspam but I cannot believe that it is ok no matter how well you are respected you are to create articles about your own work and reference your own publications as the sole proof of notability. Doesn't this pose a problem of conflict of interest? Dom from Paris (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully trust the search facility in PDF documents. Maybe @Azd0815: can help us out with a page reference? – Joe (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Joe Roe and
  WP:TROUT Dom (per this and a related AfD) - this is clearly a notable site. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A notable geographical feature with sufficient solid references. Invalid reason for deletion. Nominator should read
  WP:DEL1 to prevent this kind of blind misnomination in the future. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I hope to have corrected the points mentioned my critic regarding al-Negd, Oman: I entered an image of the coin which was found, the page number of my publication in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a separate citation by the National Museum, and the date when a team visited the site. I point out that the find is new, only made in 2014 and published in 2016. If this does not suffice the director of excavations, Khamis al-Asmi, was present and other witnesses, who can be contacted if further doubt exists. I am busy correcting other points (Lizq) which my critic has cavelled. I am grateful for your help.Azd0815 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nial

Nial (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)

Sourced solely by self-published references for nearly 9 years. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I almost never resort to it but this is a case for
  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There is a reasonably large literature on Nial, and it seems to me that sections not devoted to the syntax could easily be sourced properly, so this should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Article issues can be fixed and do not justify deletion - there are plenty of sources available in Google Books for starters. --Michig (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly a notable programming language, just from looking at the Google results and the Google Books results. Rockypedia (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It a fifth generation language. More than coverage for keeping and expanding the article. scope_creep (talk) 12:05, 7 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OG Cuicide

OG Cuicide (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 rapper. Fails

• Delete Fails
  talk) 04:14, 13 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Chang Stadium

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

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

Fails the GNG, not having been covered in-depth by any reliable source at all, as far as I could determine. Only news coverage I found was a passing mention of its being used as a temporary practice ground by Chonburi F.C. while their home stadium was being rebuilt in 2009.[15] Other Google results are forum posts, mostly asking for directions as it appears to be really obscure. For context, this post contains some photos.[16] It's more of a field with a concrete stand rather than an actual stadium. Paul_012 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC) PS PROD contested by MensanDeltiologist. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable soccer field. Rockypedia (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The creator has been indefinitely blocked for problematic editing, especially not adding sources to articles, so won't be able to comment here. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I contested the prod because the reasons given were because it was unreferenced and no longer used. In my edit summary, I wrote “You can ask for reference and fact it s no longer used doesn’t mean it isn’t notable.” For example, the first two Yankee Stafiums don’t even exist anymore yet they are still notable. The reference situation discussed in earlier comments is another story. It is one thing to ask for references and another to not be able to find any. I didn’t look because even if I found one, I don’t feel comfortable enough with the subject to know what was relevant and what wasn’t. So I left it to others to look into. I am neutral on the subject of whether or not to delete but based on the reasons given in the prod, I felt it deserved a shot to be improved. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 07:10, 7 February 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. A merge discussion can be held on the article talk page if desired, but from the sources provided it seems to be notable enough. ansh666 07:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper (cryptography)

Pepper (cryptography) (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sneftel (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be two non-notable neologisms shoved together. Only one source for each usage of the term, neither one peer-reviewed. Neither concept seems to be in general use.

• Keep - I'm inclined to say this article needs improvement, not deletion. It's clearly a real thing, and I already found one article in a reliable source, semi-current, about it very quickly. Rockypedia (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Merge to
  π, ν) 19:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Merge. I've found enough sources to convince myself this is a real thing. The Guardian, A Graduate Course in Applied Cryptography, are a couple of
  WP:RS, but still convince me that it's a real term in common use in the crypto community. It's probably notable on its own, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't be covered better as part of Salt (cryptography). I could go either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 14 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Girls!

The Girls! (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)

Self-promotion page about a local band, authored primarily by one of the band's members, and non-encyclopedic in tone and content. I'm requesting that someone else complete the AfD process as I do not have a Wikipedia account. (completed for 104.184.22.222) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 09:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 09:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per
  WP:YAMB Legacypac (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt Article was recreated under the radar a year after the first AFD. No evidence that the
  WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 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. ansh666 18:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Regiment - Gallipoli 1915

42nd Regiment - Gallipoli 1915 (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)

English book not released yet and doesn't appear like there is coverage on this unreleased book yet. Sources in article do not establish notability of the Turkish (or unreleased English) book - one source is the book itself, and the other source is there to source post-Gallipoli postings of the regiment. In my BEFORE for additional Turkish sources (all be it hampered by my far from perfect Turkish) I was unable to find additional reviews. Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Does not meet

Order of battle for the Gallipoli Campaign or potentially more specific Landing at Cape Helles. Book could also eventually be used as a WP:RS for those articles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This is not an article about the 42nd Regiment of the Turkish Army, which might warrant merger with
  WP:NBOOKS. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DElete -- This an advert for a book. We cannot have an article on every book that someone think of publishing. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 February 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. ansh666 07:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Viengluang

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

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep two of the cited article are about her and her role in the series. Meets the general notabiloty guideline per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to pop culture and galore? If so they are both

WP:INTERVIEWs and as such are considered as primary sources for notability purposes. GNG requires in depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete fails the first requirement of [for actors], "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She has only had a major role in one television show. Not notable. Cait.123 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She does pass that guideline. She has a major role in multiple seasons of a hit television series. She also meets the secons criteria of having a following. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not seeing any real
  WP:N. Most of the sources in the article are blogs or social media. The Fine Magazine item is an interview. Science Fiction is just a passing mention. Galore is another interview. These are not what we're looking for in the way of sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 14 February 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 after improvements to sourcing. ansh666 07:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (2015 film)

Plan 9 (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I put a proposed deletion (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The SF Signal is pretty well thought of - it has actually won three
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep many of the references were unreliable but now that better references have been added it can be seen that the reviews in established film reliable sources Dread Central and Screen Anarchy as well as coverage in io9 and Scream magazine enable a bare pass of
  WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep While the original may have had some problems, I think it just about passes notability. The film itself is pretty horrendous, however. Definitely not worth the many minutes I wasted watching it. Stui (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - As said above, the newly introduced sources, while not the most in depth, are enough to let this one barely pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:51, 6 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wanmelbu

Wanmelbu (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 verifiable. No references, and I can only find Wikipedia mirrors when looking for sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 10:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment There is this. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Huh, "... the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online". 80.219.255.14 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not finding anything substantive. Mangoe (talk) 19:16, 6 February 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 Moot due to concurrently started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantra (2016 film) (2nd nomination). . DMacks (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra (2016 film)

Mantra (2016 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I've removed a cherry-picked gushing review, but it's not at all clear to me why this film is notable or whether the references are genuine independent third-party sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:41, 6 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Mwesigwa

Edwin Mwesigwa (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 person. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Being a local radio personality on a single-market local radio station is not an automatic notability freebie, but this isn't referenced to anything like enough
  reliable source). None of these are notability-assisting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete single-market radio personalities are almost always non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 12 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irvan Smith (Mr. Vero)

Irvan Smith (Mr. Vero) (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 biography of a non-notable businessman/programmer. Prose barely makes sense and references are either trivial mentions or advertorials. Declined PROD. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 14:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Saying that the Prose barely makes sense is an overstatement. It's clear this was written by somebody who is not a native English speaker, but that's not a reason to delete. The diction and grammar can be cleaned up. The real problem is that he really does appear to be non-notable. My own searching failed to come up with anything. I searched for him by name, and also searched for the two companies he's associated with. All the sources listed in the article are in Indonesian, so I had to rely on the auto-translations. That's an admittedly poor way to evaluate something, but from what I can see, there's nothing in the sources provided which helps meet
  WP:GNG. If somebody could point out some better sources, and provide good English translations, that would be helpful. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no true notability; refs are industry type and not in depth.104.163.148.25 (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything to satisfy notability requirements. Appearing on a judging panel with Larry Page is not enough nor is being CEO of a startup that is not itself notable. I'm afraid this is a puff piece created and defended by a single-purpose account.
  WP:SPA Mcewan (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have to say also that it's, let's say, surprising that the article has been around for 5 months or so. Mcewan (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcewan: Unfortunately the backlog of unreviewed new pages goes all the way back to August of last year. – Joe (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. Fair enough - and as an only intermittently active wikipedian, I bear my share of responsibility for that :) Mcewan (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator and others that this individual does not meet
  WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Puff piece about a businessman lacking coverage in reliable sources. The claims to notability are weak, and in any case weren't widely discussed by sources.
  csdnew 12:42, 13 February 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.

• Withdraw-ref provided.
  talk) 03:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 economics profession working in various university. No major achievements or any major influence on economics field ; Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The text of the article as currently written is a copyvio, but he has a GS h-index of 56 and over 13,000 citations [20].
  talk) 15:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Addendum Since a pass of

  talk) 23:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. RePEc lists him in the top 20 Swiss economists, out of some 930 total [21]. That's good enough for a pass of
  WP:PROF#C1 for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep OK, I'm calling it a pass of
  talk) 02:08, 7 February 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 Shinfield#Institutions. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crosfields School

Crosfields 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)

Independent primary phase school, no indication of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 13:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect - Blank and redirect to Shinfield#Institutions where it is already listed. Closer please remember to place the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a primary school with no clear indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 14 February 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. Particularly per the history of AfDs for other similar lists being closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Synapse Films releases

List of Synapse Films releases (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)

• Keep perfectly legitimate list article split off from main article. Consistent with policy. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is policy. This is nothing more than a catalog. How is this consistent? --woodensuperman 16:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 08:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 08:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Tentatively keep and improve. As per
  WP:NOTCATALOG, lists of creative works are permitted if they aren't simple lists and if they're written in an encyclopedic manner. Although Synapse is merely a film distributor, they include original bonus content with each release, which I would argue warrants its own list (or, at the very least, a mention). In its current state, the list is quite simple and unencyclopedic, but could be worked on to meet list standards. I've made this a tentative keep because the company itself isn't tremendously notable (although it was NfD in the past and kept), which might make proper sourcing and encyclopedic writing a challenge. Nanophosis (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A list of DVD or BluRay releases is essentially a list of
  WP:NOTCATALOG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:Promo product listing. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Selective merge to
  WP:NOTCATALOG. ansh666 07:44, 14 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bell (businessman)

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

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

This individual seems more notable for his failures as a businessman than anything else. He is also alleged to have committed massive VAT fraud but has not been convicted as far as I know. I think he fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.,
  WP:PERP.  samee  ^talk 06:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. No clear claim of notability.
  π, ν) 04:48, 14 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine cup

Columbine cup (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)

Dictionary entry with little chance of expansion. Doesn't seem very notable, could maybe be incorporated into a glossary or list somewhere? In fact, the whole content of this article could probably be merged into the columbine cup paragraph in Masterpiece, which is the only article that links here anyway. Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 13:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as per below.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 04:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a dictionary entry; it's a stub. See
  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment My apologies, it's a dictionary entry with one sentence worth of encyclopedic information, which is just about all it'll ever have. Not every design of cup is notable. Anyway, I'm well aware of MAD, which does not in fact say that merger and deletion are incompatible, just that they should be sparingly used. Since the content to be merged was written by a single author (a bot has no IP rights, I added an AfD and you added a picture – neither of which are to be merged in), and the only link *to* this article is *from* the article it should be merged into, there's no problem simply mentioning the author of the content in the edit history and deleting the article.--Newbiepedian (talk · contribs · X! · logs) 15:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 13:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 05:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The Grove Encyclopedia of Decorative Arts - Oxford University Press

The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance - Oxford University Press

The Penguin Dictionary of Decorative Arts by Honour and Fleming

I hope the nominator will now graciously withdraw the nomination.Philafrenzy (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well sourced article of encyclopedic value. Far more than a dictionary entry. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:13, 8 February 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.

No Name (Montenegrin band)

No Name (Montenegrin 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)

fails

Marko Prentić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Danijel Alibabić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Moja ljubavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Zauvijek moja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Domdeparis (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete for the band. They have been mentioned by a solid source, BBC, for the song contest controversy so that might establish basic
  notability. But I can find little else about them so I would not dispute anyone who concludes that they do not have enough notability for their own article. Also, Definitely Delete the articles on the singles and individual members, for the reasons stated by the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Competed in Eurovision Song Contest and fared well. Per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: could you indicate which criteria of NMUSIC they fulfill please and which sources meet GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per the criteria #9 of NMUSIC the group would have had to have been placed 1st 2nd or 3rd in the Eurovision song contest to be considered as maybe notable, this criteria was validated in a discussion here in which a certain number of the Wikiproject Eurovision members participated and supported. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the band -
  Zauvijek moja" for Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings #5, same as for the band. Redirect band members. OZOO (t) (c) 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I would probably point towards
  WP:NEXIST as well. For reasoning of Keeping this article. As well as for keeping the band members articles.BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 11 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zhitpa

Zhitpa (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)

Not finding any coverage in reliable sources to even verify this cheese. Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't found any reliable sources, but I've found at least one mention of "Brokpa Zhitpa" [22] which suggests this isn't a hoax. Without a speaker of
  π, ν) 00:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Here's is a decent source for 'hitpa' cheese from Bhutan. Go figure where the 'z' came from. 80.219.255.14 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not verifiable. I've looked again and found nothing that mentions this in the context of
  π, ν) 04:51, 14 February 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Calleja

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

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

fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the creator is here to promote themselves/their organization exclusively. Legacypac (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional, non-notable ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet
  WP:GNG, aside from the clearly promotional tone of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:17, 10 February 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.