Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 June 11

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunset (song)

The Sunset (song) (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)

Yet another article on a Moody Blues song that has been left unreferenced simply because no in-depth sources existed to begin with. I do not think a redirect is appropriate, unless the editing history is deleted then redirected to the likely search term Sunset. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's
  WP:FANCRUFT of interest to the band's devotees, but there are no reliable sources to indicate notability for this particular song. Could possibly be redirected to Days of Future Passed but since "Sunset" is a common term, that might mess up future searches for the natural event (as noted by the nominator). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: fails
  WP:NSONG, and as noted, a redirect isn't useful due to the name. Richard3120 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Gupta

Nikhil Gupta (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

Speedied twice in 2008 (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I found nothing more than passing mentions in a couple of news articles. MT Train^Talk 03:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This version of the page is about a different Nikhil Gupta (the previously deleted articles were about a fortune-teller), so previous arguments for deletion do not necessarily apply. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet notability for
  basic notability. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A few paltry mentions(

WP:MILL coverage) does not add up to much in terms of notability...This should have been a no brainer since even the party he is running for does not have a Wikipedia page — FR ⁺ 11:12, 18 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Babysitters (film)

Babysitters (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)

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

(there's a halo...) 23:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't want to say "per nom," but the nominator's assessment is correct here. Babysitters fails WP:NFILM. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hardly a film based only on sexual performances pass in WP:NFILM, in this case the characters do not have at least name.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Hasnt won any notable award,s Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass
  WP:NFILM with no reviews in reliable sources, only in niche adult video sources Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - this is hardly an informative article, as it does not say much about the film other than listing the cast. Vorbee (talk) 15:51, 17 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David An

David An (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)

Currently not a notable actor. So far, he has only had bit parts in films (few of which are themselves notable) and non-recurrent TV series roles and therefore falls short of the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks the coverage needed to establish general notability nor do the roles indicate any sort of notability that could be established specifically for actors. --Whpq (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a bunch of insignificant roles do not add up to notability. Unfortunantely at present there seems to be an attitude in some circles in Wikipedia if you appeared in at least 10 films made before 1950, at least as long as you were included in the credits, you are notable. This is a horribly low threshold for notability and has produced some very vaucuous articles. I am doing my best to reverse this notation, and clearly keep it from applying to living actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 13 June 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. Exactly what form the page should have is a subject for the talk page, but it is more than clear that there is no consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake

McArthur Lake (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 does not comply with Wikipedia standards for a standalone list. It is not an encyclopedic topic; putting in sourced statements about random factoids does not cover that up. I myself wrote an essay against use of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are five articles with similar titles:

Lake McArthur

McArthur Lake, Northwest Territories

McArthur Lake, Ontario

Lac McArthur

McArthur Lake, Idaho

There is clearly a need for a list or disambiguation article to help readers navigate to the one they want. The advantage of the list format is that it supports information about several other lakes with similar names that do not warrant an article on their own. This is in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria. But the format and content can be discussed on the article talk page. The question here is whether it should be deleted. It is useful and well-sourced, so should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would be useful is a disambiguation page; there is nothing further useful about the improper list. If you want to change how disambiguation pages are done in Wikipedia to allow photos and sources and random thoughts, then go ahead and open a discussion at

wp:MOSDAB

, and you will not succeed.

I previously pointed out that the section on "Common selection criteria" is about how many items to include in a standalone list, IF it is established that the list topic is acceptable. Here, the list topic "lakes with McArthur in their name" is not acceptable. It would be okay to have a proper, stripped-down disambiguation page as is done for other common lake names (Round Lake, Long Lake, etc.). --Doncram (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but reformat so it meets
  MOS:DAB standards. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Move McArthur Lake (disambiguation) to the base title. Updating my !vote per developments below. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a set index article, similar to the examples: List of peaks named Signal and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise. Perhaps that would be clearer if it was moved to List of lakes named McArthur, but I see no reason for that. As a set index it can support navigation and and give more information. The scenario I see is:

Granny is talking about her childhood vacations in Nova Scotia, where she fished in Lake McArthur. You look it up on Wikipedia and find there are three lakes with names like that, none with articles, but they give some information. You ask her, "Did it have a railway along the shore? Was there an old sawmill? Does the name Framboise ring a bell? She answers and you have found the lake, with links to the map, sources and pictures.

If we strip this set index down to a bare bones disambiguation page, we lose encyclopedic information and do our readers a disservice. To quote the guideline, "one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required..." Aymatth2 (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the navigational purpose of disambiguation pages are superior to the current set-up. The encyclopedic content is covered by the articles themselves, so there would be nothing that is "lost". The whole reason disambiguation pages are so "bare-bones" is so readers can find the article they want with as little lost effort as possible, which the status quo is awful at accomplishing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a place for both, and set index articles and disambiguation pages can coexist. For example the DAB Signal Mountain has a "See also" link to List of peaks named Signal. The DAB quickly takes the user to the article they want – if it exists. The Set index article gives information about all the entries in the set, whether or not they have articles. So we could move this one to List of lakes named McArthur, then make this title a DAB, but I think that works better if most entries in the index have articles, not the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The MOS is not meant to be a straitjacket, and DAB pages are not supposed to have redlinked entries. Also there are variants on the name: McArthur, McArthurs, etc. A list enables inclusion of identifying information, as Aymatth2 argues, sources, and images, and does not preclude also having a DAB page to lead quickly to those that do have standalone articles. One of our functions is to be a gazeteer, and accordingly I think the same standard should obtain here as for populated places, including neighborhoods: if encyclopedic information does not merit a standalone article, it should be preserved in an organized form that enables a reader to easily find it (including for example links in other articles to list items/article subsections) and does not involve spurious red links, which suggest a standalone article is merited. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: Disambiguation pages can/do include redlinked entries. Those should comply with

MOS:DABRL

, i.e. be supported by a bluelink to an article that shows the redlink in context, i.e. is suggestive that the topic deserves an article. Given Yngvadottir's misunderstanding, their "!vote" should be downweighted IMO, though Yngvadottir is welcome to revise or clarify their view.

A complete disambiguation page would include the following (with the Australia item being a redlink compliant with disambiguation page requirements) --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that's needed here. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Red links indicate that an article is desirable. Whether or not practice has changed with respect to red links on DAB pages (it was my understanding that entries were to be kept to one per line, such that a red-linked item should only be added immediately prior to creating the article, with the line otherwise not linking the item but only the page to which the reader is referred for coverage), as Doncram says below, "A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics", whereas a list can include items that do not merit an article, but complete the set. If we remove this list and only keep the DAB page, we lose information—with references, yet—for lakes that fall below that threshhold. That does the reader a disservice and is pointless. An encyclopedia should not contain only information that merits entire articles. In addition, noting a point made below by Aymatth2, a list as opposed to a table not only renders better on a small screen but enables linking to items (including on the DAB page if desired) using links to subheadings. That facilitates reader searching. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Aymatth2. This is a valid set index article, a/k/a a multi-stub, containing useful information that would not be included on a dab page. Everything seems to be sourced. (Came here per request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.) - Station1 (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets the definition of an SIA: "a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Despite my initial misgivings (and apparent illiteracy at failing to notice the bluelinked articles... mea culpa) at the prior AFD, there's really no question that this should be retained in some format. Personally, it is my understanding of the MOS that there should be a disambiguation page here, following the disambiguation page style guidelines. That said, I would be amenable to including the lakes of this name without articles (such as the Nova Scotia lakes) in the disambiguation page; I believe the most correct outcome would be to make the one-link-per-line to... whatever the most appropriate administrative subdivision of Nova Scotia would be, for example. IF there's a desire for a set index also, that's an editorial decision; I am not clear when it is appropriate to have both a set index list and a disambiguation page when the content between the two would be largely (but not entirely) duplicative. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lakes without articles are in fact allowed on a disambiguation page, as long as there is a redlink to them from some other article. If a lake is never expected to get an article and there is no redlink to it, then we don't want to mention it at all. A disambiguation page is to help readers navigate to Wikipedia-notable topics. --Doncram (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see guidelines on this, but think the common practice is

• If most of the set members have articles there should be a DAB page setname plus a set index list of setname to handle the complete set.
• If most of the set entries do not have articles, there should just be a set index setname. The idea is not to force someone looking for a member without an article to go first to the DAB page, then click through to the set index, which they may not spot at the foot of the DAB page.

In this case, there are five lakes with articles and six that are unlikely to ever get articles. My feeling is that only a set index setname is most appropriate. It will take slightly longer to find the first five, but much less time to find the other six. But obviously the first five are more likely search targets, so this is not a strong argument. It would be easy enough to rename this one as a "list of" index, then make a short DAB with a link to the index. I prefer the heading-style list given here to a table-style list mainly because wide tables render poorly on phones, the main viewing device these days. This is just personal preference. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In a case like this where everything with the similar name is part of the same set, only the set index article is required, because every item that would appear on a dab page is already included and linked from the set index. Only if there were topics unrelated to lakes -- say "McArthur Lake (play)", "McArthur Lake (song)" and "McArthur Lake (painting)" -- would we need a separate dab page with the article about the lakes being one of the items. Station1 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. – that makes sense. The set index is primarily a type of list article, but it can serve as a type of DAB if it covers all the meanings. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: C'mon people. Exert some editorial judgment. If someone wants to waste a good portion of their life compiling lists of lakes, I suggest that they choose to create or expand and split out compilations organized by geographic area or by watershed, rather than glomming together lakes with various letter-strings in their name. E.g.
  McCarthys Lake (which deserves deletion by my view, but maybe you think it should be expanded into a list-article). Hmm, shouldn't you expand your list-article to be "lakes with McCarthur or MacCarthur or McCarthy in their names". Or start a new compilation for the McCarthy ones? And one for MacDonalds Lake, and one for MacGregors Lake, and one for MacIntyre Lake, and one for MacRaes Lake. Go ahead waste your life, adding no value for anyone. Or maybe you give someone miniscule value, at cost of giving negative value to others who might search and find nothing worth arriving at. Uggh. We do get to exercise editorial judgment in Wikipedia, and what makes sense here is to say NO. --Doncram (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Further comment: All this list-article does is append together what one editor found in Google search for "McArthur Lake". It adds no value for "granny" who can search better in Google than you can, because she can add more terms and search more narrowly. It actually hurts, now Granny has to wade through this new list-article in the Google results, which will end up including dead links, too. A fresh Google search is better for her than this; it shows no editorial discretion helping a specific-item-searching-Granny nor providing anything encyclopedic to those interested in lakes more generally. An encyclopedia should add value by editorial discretion, not include crap like "Fish include largemouth bass, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, flier, pickerel and bullhead catfish.[20]", etc. Would you like for a robot to generate a zillion more wikipedia articles, on every possible search term in Google? Let me call this my Google test for list-articles: we don't want the list-article if it provides nothing more than what Google can generate on the fly, and if it is worse than fresh Google results for many/most searchers. --Doncram (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to DAB page per Doncram. This is effectively a content dispute at this point.
  π, ν) 19:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is a content dispute, and technically that should be resolved by gaining consensus on the article's talk page, not through an AfD. But I think we would all like to put it to bed. @

Power~enwiki: Do you have a policy-based reason for your vote to convert the article from a set index to a disambiguation page? Aymatth2 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for agreeing this can be covered as an AFD. Conceptually I think it is better understood as disagreement about whether a list-article should exist, so AFD is better. In two seconds I could create McArthur Lake (disambiguation) and then everyone would agree this is technically correct, to have an AFD about the list-article, with intent for it to be deleted and have the disambiguation page moved there. --Doncram (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Apparently that was confusing, as if the creation of a separate DAB page would make me okay with this list-article. No, I nominated this list-article for deletion and stand by my opinion it should be deleted.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that the article fully conforms with the standard

user:Power~enwiki a chance to give us a reason other than "I don't like set indexes". Aymatth2 (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

If

π, ν) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, Aymathh2 and I do not agree. The list-article should be deleted. --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "list-article". I assume you mean anything beyond your DAB page. To try to be entirely clear: as

π, ν) 02:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

McArthur Lake is a standard set index article, a list of lakes called "McArthur Lake", including five that have articles and six that do not. It gives 1–3 lines of text about each lake, citing sources. It may help readers looking for information on a given McArthur Lake, even if there is no article for that lake. The AfD nominator agrees there should be a page with this name. Is there any guideline that says everything after the lead section in this set index article should be deleted, so it becomes a DAB? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Says you. Okay, call it "set index article", rather than a list-article. This AFD proposes that it should be deleted, because it is not a notable topic for a set index article or list-article. There has to be some standard. Why not create a complete list in mainspace listing Aymatth2 and myself and other editors here. It would be a complete list of a set. That does not make it Wikipedia-notable.

Trying now to cut through minor confusion here, I have created McArthur Lake (disambiguation) as a disambiguation page. This AFD continues on whether the "set index article" should be kept or deleted to make way for the disambiguation page to be moved to simply "McArthur Lake". Several editors above have agreed that there should be a disambiguation page, and fewer have agreed that the current list-article is a set index article, seemingly therefore supporting its continuation. But none of these have provided evidence on it meeting any standard for notability. We do not want 50,000 or more set index articles about lakes which tries to save steps for Granny's Google search; we have an existing geography-based list-system of lakes. --Doncram (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Now that
  splits and merges, after which this set index article could be converted to a dab page. Another possibility is to create stubs for the lakes that don't yet have articles and then convert this to a dab page. Personally, I think things are fine as they are. Station1 (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The DAB page is completely redundant to the lead section of the set index list, but more long-winded, and was just created to make a point. Probably simpler to delete it as part of closing this discussion. There is no reason to have two pages with the same list of five articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that McArthur Lake (disambiguation) has been plagiarized from McArthur Lake by taking a copy and pruning out much content. The proposal by User:Doncram is to delete McArthur Lake and then replace it by the plagiarized version, which would wipe out all history of the editors who did the work to assemble this list. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is emphatically not plagiarism. It concerns me that you think it is. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is plagiarism. That is when you copy material from another source without due acknowledgement. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the way it should have been done. The strange decision to have one heading per list entry, the same text and sequence as McArthur Lake, clearly shows copying. A more normal structure would have been that of the lead section in McArthur Lake, a simple 5-line bulleted list, but that simple list did not exist when the (attributed) copy at Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate1 was taken. One way to have handled this would have been through an acknowledgement in the edit summary. A much simpler way to convert to a DAB (which I do not think should be done) would be to replace the last line in the lead section with {{disambiguation}} and delete the remainder. That leaves all the history intact. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and move the dab page here. Seriously? People are arguing to keep a list of things based only on their name? The entire purpose of disambiguation is to point people to the proper places to find this information, and if they're not notable enough for an article they can either be included in a proper geographic location or not included at all. For those concerned about losing information - if the lake is notable, move this content to a stub article. If it isn't, consider whether the information is worthwhile being on Wikipedia, and if it is, move it somewhere so that the dab page can send people there (the Victorian one, for example, could go to
  Raak Plain) The fact that anyone is seriously arguing that "List of lakes named McArthur" is a remotely serious outcome here makes my head spin. What next, "List of people named John"? Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is what Wikipedia:Set index articles are all about. List of peaks named Signal is a recognized type of article. The title is not a notable subject, but the list is useful. The above vote is "I don't like set index articles". Again, if there were any case for converting this article to a DAB, that should be done by simply deleting everything but the lead section, leaving the edit history intact, The clumsy "delete-then-move" the strangely structured and unattributed DAB serves only to destroy edit history. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are many thousands of articles that are lists of people who have no connection other than their first name, including Johnny, Johnathan, Johne, Johnie, and Johny. - Station1 (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly reformat to more of a disambiguation page, but there's nothing wrong with including lakes with this name that aren't notable enough for their own article in the list. SportingFlyer talk 19:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To see how it would look, I put the article into table format at

Talk:McArthur Lake/Alternate2. This layout is more like the sample articles cited at Wikipedia:Set index articles. It does not look nearly as bad on a mobile as I expected. That change could be discussed on the article talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I like it. I might put the bluelinks at the top as well as in the list, though. SportingFlyer talk 02:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that. So the front of the article still looks like a disambiguation page, then the detail follows, but it is not broken up with headings. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Split, and replace by a disam page for the lakes, since each of them is independently notable. A few don't have individual articles yet, and they are needed. The content here can be used as a start DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If all the eleven lakes have articles this page can be trimmed down to a disambiguation page. I will do that after splitting out articles for the six lakes that have no pages if the decision is to split. I am a bit hesitant because I think I scraped the bottom of the barrel for online sources on McArthur Lakes, so the information given here on the non-article lakes is just about all that is available. In the parallel discussion at

WP:GNG

. The guideline says:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.

But rightly or wrongly these very short, maybe single-sourced articles, are likely to get AfD challenges. I do not want to create articles that just get deleted, but am not sure I would have the energy to defend them. I suppose they could be redirects to paragraphs in articles on local geography, but that seem a bit artificial when the local geography unit contains many lakes but its article does not yet discuss any of them. @DGG: Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

anyone can challenge anything, dut so far only aabout a tenth of articles on such geographic features have been defeated at AfD. Factors preventing deletion have been whether there are facilities at the lake, and especially if the lake is aa major part of a public park. (If there are facilities of a park, it should in prinicple be able to getsources about their creation or designation, but these are the sort of sources that are difficult to find; though they sometimes turn up in the online portions of local newspapers--but the entire run of all local newspaers are yet online,and many local and State official records are still only in print. Still, the possibility means they are soureable; there is no requirement they be currently sourced. Factors leading towards deletion have been if htere is literally only a name on a map, if t's a small lake on private property, and especially if there is a hotel or resort on the lake and the article iswritten to highlight it in a promotional manner. It's not artificial to make articles where we conveniently can, and add more later--most of WP has grown in just that fashion. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that opinion

MacArthur's Lake (Victoria) and will take a shot at the remaining seven lakes that do not yet have articles. When that is done, tomorrow I hope, I will trim this article down into a disambiguation page. I fully support the objective that Yngvadottir has noted of making Wikipedia a useful gazetteer. Thanks again, Aymatth2 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have done a first cut and will tidy up tomorrow. I see no reason to keep this discussion open. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 16 June 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. Steve Smith (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Boockvar

John A. Boockvar (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)

Nice man I'm sure. EEng 21:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please give reason(s) as to why this article should be deleted.
  talk) 22:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lack of notability -- what did you think? EEng 22:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article as currently stands is referenced solely to affiliated sources and to databases, neither of which denote notability. Previously AFD's "keep" rested on accepting reposted press releases as legitimate coverage, which was an error. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cursory examination of, say, Google News shows one, maybe two hits, neither of which has enough depth to satisfy the requirements here. (At least, insofar as I recall my check from a few hours ago. Let me do one again.) Sorry, four. Three are press releases, and one is a mention in passing in some unknown newspaper. (I say that, and I mean that it lacks a Wikipedia article of its own.) So, simply put: just not enough notability for now. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 03:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the history of promotional pressure i am not going to !vote to keep (btw, his main page at Northwell, which I did not use as source, as it is disgustingly promotional, says "Click here to view Dr. Boockvar's Wikipedia page." People at the Northwell have dumped truckloads of promotional slag into WP and have corrupted many pages here. Grrr.)

In any case I cleaned the page up and added some stuff in these diffs. You all can reckon if he passes the bar or not. He is a full professor, but doesn't heve a named chair, has about 130 papers per pubmed, and has i think made an impact in his field. but you all decide. Its marginal and there is a real dearth of independent discussion about him. I will not !vote keep. Jytdog (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject lacking
  notability, even post make-over. I remember Greg. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete per nom It's just a resumé, and Wikipedia is not a place to to place resumés or a promotional venue. Not Myspace. Not meeting
  fact checking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:00, 12 June 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.

Nirmal Baby Varghese (Editor)

Nirmal Baby Varghese (Editor) (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)

Deleted once before, see

• Delete Per nomination.
  talk) 22:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This AFD is a waste of time as this page has been deleted on 18 May 2018 via AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nirmal Baby Varghese and a G4 tag was removed multiple times by IP's. FITINDIA 05:23, 12 June 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 Team Liquid. Will protect this to prevent undue restoration of the bio; any info worth merging to the target article is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Arhancet

Steve Arhancet (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)

Gamer and co-CEO of a team that plays in

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Team Liquid. The redirect target was actually League of Legends at first instead of Team Liquid, but the latter seems more relevant because he isn't even mentioned once at League of Legends. 9³ (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He is notable due to being a relevant figurehead in the community. For example he is mentioned in this LA Times article, http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-la-tech-20161003-snap-htmlstory.html and he is the owner (https://www.teamliquidpro.com/about) of the organization. A colleague of his, Andy Dinh has a wiki page, and I would argue that they have similar if not Steve having more influence in the esports scene. ImRespawn (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Team Liquid. As per 93. No independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful (Aretha Henry album)

Beautiful (Aretha Henry album) (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 Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Before anyone says "Redirect to Artist's Article" as is becoming common practice, that article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, likely
  WP:COI with article creators. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete on account of subject failing
  Good work, though, folks. -The Gnome (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted (Aretha Henry album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful (Aretha Henry album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhuman (Aretha Henry album)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 18 June 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.

Ahool

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

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

A number of pseudoscientific sources are being cited, but no

• Delete. I was also unable to find anything but fringe sources on this topic. If the root of all of this is folk belief, I'm not finding it. Without a reliable source, I can't tell what's beyond the fringe echo chamber. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- the only report appears to be "The One True Batman" by Ivan T. Sanderson and Ernst Bartels in a July 1966 issue of Fate, repeated a few times in fringe sources like Mysterious Creatures: A Guide to Cryptozoology and The Beasts That Hide from Man. Absolutely nothing resembling significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --tronvillain (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fringe content that doesn't have
  WP:FRIND doesn't belong here. By the way, this might be of interest to the fringe theory noticeboard if you haven't posted it there already. Nanophosis (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Looks like XOR'easter took care of it already. --tronvillain (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)#[reply]

• Delete per nom, following an appearance on FTN. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable. Mentioned in a number of sources published by respected publishers. 91.235.142.81 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since the rest of us can't find a single instance of this, care to provide an example? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Schuster 91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, that's a publisher. What is it you are referring to that was published by this publisher? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the references in the article.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably Cryptozoology A To Z: The Encyclopedia Of Loch Monsters, Sasquatch, Chupacabras, And Other Authentic Mysteries of Nature, but that's absolutely not a reliable source independent of the subject, and even if it was, wouldn't establish notability. --tronvillain (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely a reliable source for what it is being used to cite. Good look finding any "independent" source on this topic. All either are pro-Cryptozoology or anti-Cryptozoology. Independent is not necessary to establish notability.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Well played sir. Have a towel. + + + hands towel + + + -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the definition of "independent" used in the link you have provided those sources are independent.91.235.142.81 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From

WP:NFRINGE, "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Coleman could not possibly be more of a promoter/popularizer, and a few paragraphs repeating the primary source is not extensive coverage. --tronvillain (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you know what those words mean. A popularizer is someone who originally made something popular and a promulgator is the originator of something.91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure IP, sure. It doesn't matter anyway. --tronvillain (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That response really says it all doesn't it?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it doesn't constitute extensive coverage, so it doesn't matter whether or not he's a popularize/promulgator? I'm not sure you've looked up the definitions of those words recently though. --tronvillain (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say that one source constituted that?91.235.142.81 (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Promulgator" does not mean the originator of something. There are literally hundreds (possibly thousands) of dictionaries available on the very internet you're arguing on: please use one.

Tell me all about it. 20:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Nowhere near enough reference material for an article. If the sources are all big lists of cryptids, rather than specifically about this particular one, then this strongly suggests that it is not notable enough for an article although it could be mentioned very briefly in other articles. For example, I'd have no objection to a redirect to List of cryptids provided the entry for it there becomes referenced and the silly picture accompanying it gets removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per DanielRigal. —Javert2113 (Let's chat!) 19:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not covered in
  talk) 19:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for lack of coverage independent of cryptozoology.
  Tell me all about it. 13:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I love cryptozoology and want them to have strong Wikipedia pages for people to find and learn about. But in this specific case I think we need to delete this article.Sgerbic (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because I live in the real world. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 10:48, 14 June 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 as withdrawn by nominator AustralianRupert (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Đức_Cơ

Battle of Đức_Cơ (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)

WP:GNG and WP:RS. There is one source for this topic, and the notability of it appears scant and obscure. The source itself seems to not meet the criteria for a reliable source. A bicyclette (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Move to Battle of Landing Zone 27 Victor As the Battle of LZ 27 Victor, this is covered by
  WP:RS. Not only that, but in Korean Chae Myung-shin mentioned it in his memoirs [1]. Kges1901 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I'm not even going to bother to list any of the numerous book sources that cover this battle (you need to search for "Duc Co"). The nomination is a complete failure of
  WP:BEFORE. SpinningSpark 22:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just a point, searching the specific date, August 6th, 1966 and Duc Co just returns information that two villages were "mistakenly believed to be VC camps", resulting in 67 civilian casualties. There's no information on actual battles taking place here except this specific source. User:a_bicyclette

• Keep Carland is WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing request for deletion. A good source was found, with significant more detail on the matter. (User talk:a_bicyclette)

• Keep Seems notable per my BEFORE. oppose move to ""Battle of Landing Zone 27 Victor" - which seems less common.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Covering by reliable sources demonstrated. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 03:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. I considered relisting this one, but it's been running for two weeks, and it's not like there's much ongoing discussion. Steve Smith (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glendy B. Arnold

Glendy B. Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that she meets

• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plenty of fodder for a more extensive article about this gentleman at https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Glendy+B.+Arnold%22&offset=2. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::It is marked as a stub. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the offices held by the subject are sufficient to meet automatic notability for
  significant. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A three-column article, with illustrations, in a major metropolitan newspaper is not routine. Thanks. https://www.newspapers.com/image/138159868/?terms=%22Glendy%2BB.%2BArnold%22%2Bmarguerite%2Bmartyn. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well enough sourced to pass GNG. Historical biography of an American judge. Carrite (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It would be reassuring to know that the nominator put enough effort into WP:BEFORE to actually get the gender of the subject right. Carrite (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - was not aware that gender was an aspect of either
  WP:BEFORE… or perhaps it was a simple type. Nice AGF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 18 June 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.

Maya Thirai

Maya Thirai (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 web series, no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note I believe this article was created by a sockpuppet of a very prolific, indeffed editor Arnav19, who was almost certainly editing for pay, and who used such a poor template for his scores of articles, that he introduced the same boneheaded mistakes across the scores of articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 11 June 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.

2018–19 Scottish Challenge Cup

2018–19 Scottish Challenge 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)

Advertisement or announcement - pick one - of a sporting event that has not taken place yet. NOTDIRECTORY It was redirected to Scottish Challenge Cup but the redirect was removed on June 8, 2018. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Up coming tournament that is a month and a bit a way and has had an article every year since its creation in 1990. Meets
  ^(talk) 21:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - per NZ Footballs Conscience. It's completely normal to create articles for upcoming competitions once information about them can be reliably sourced. Nzd (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- After reading

WP:NSPORTS, the article meets the notability guidelines applicable because of the coverage in reliable sources it has received. It could do with improving, a section on the recent controversies wouldn't go amiss. I understand the point about having just been announced but a similar stance could be taken on many sporting events that have not taken place yet, off the top of my head 2018–19 Scottish Cup, 2018–19 FA Cup, 2018–19 Isthmian League, 2018–19 Highland Football League would all fall under the same bracket. If the consensus is against keeping the article, I'd suggest that it – and similar articles – be redirected until they have received the necessary coverage in reliable sources. The only problem with that is that there would be a chance that the articles are just recreated anyway. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. There has been plenty of coverage in
  WP:RS about how this season's competition will include two English clubs (BBC, STV). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - obviously. Next iteration of an obviously notable tournament, which will definitely happen and be notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - CRYSTAL doesn't apply. GiantSnowman 07:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another ridicules nomination for deletion, the nominator really needs to do his homework. Govvy (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Obviously notable, another ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanted (Aretha Henry album)

Enchanted (Aretha Henry album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable; article created with possible

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See Also Beautiful (Aretha Henry album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:NALBUM. Normally in these cases you would suggest a redirect to the artist's article, but close inspection of the sources shows there's almost nothing on either the album or artist articles that passes RS. The AllMusic and BBC pages are empty of any information, the Digital Journal entry is a reproduction of a press notice advertising the album, there are no reviews of the records even on blogspots, and no idea what the Starfleet Music Charts are, but they appear to be a paid-for service to get your music noticed. The only RS I see is a short interview in a local Mississippi newspaper [2], so not enough coverage to demonstrate notability of the artist. As Doomsdayer520 says, I think Beautiful (Aretha Henry album) and Aretha Henry herself should all be bundled together for AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - In complete agreement with
  significant coverage for the singer or her albums except for the Mississippi newspaper article found by Richard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note - Before anyone says "Redirect to Artist's Article" as is becoming common practice, that article is also being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing
  WP:NALBUM. Can someone pass the salt? -The Gnome (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just to Sum Up - There is a lot of "See also" in the world of Aretha Henry deletion discussions. We now have four AfDs nominated by four different people over five days. This shows you the power of community, if you ask me. Here is what we have so far:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aretha Henry
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanted (Aretha Henry album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful (Aretha Henry album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhuman (Aretha Henry album)

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 18 June 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.

List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species

List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species (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 reads like synthesis and original research in many places, but without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell. The tag for fixing citations has been up since 2016 with no resolution. I believe it would be nearly impossible, using the references provided below, for another editor to come and clean up the citations in this article and get it up to snuff. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is neither synthesis nor original research to compile a list of defined species by a defined time period based on known scientific data cited in numerous reliable sources. Since
  all species are de facto presumed notable, the presence of redlinks on the list is not an issue. The informal term "Late Quaternary" refers to the past 0.5–1.0 million years. Therefore this is a list of all scientifically defined and known extinct birds which lived in the past 1 million years. For obvious reasons it is recorded in reliable sources whether a particular species in extinct, and when it lived. The data of when it lived is reliably known in all cases from the geological context of the fossil it is recorded from, or where multiple fossil records are found, from multiple sources. The arrangement of the list is strictly by scientific classification, and therefore is the most unoriginal format imaginable, and easily verifiable from any database of taxon information. Regarding the sources in the article, these are currently insufficient and provide only a brief overview of the subject. To correctly source the article would require typing each name into the appropriate database to get inline citations for each list entry. Of course this is a lot of effort, however Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is unreasonable to expect this to complete itself in a week. And finally, many articles are bluelinked, the articles themselves already contain appropriate citations to verify their scientific classification, period, and extinction. Therefore even a cursory inspection of the list is sufficient to show that it is accurate. I have neither the time nor the inclination to check the entire list, but what I have checked is correct and validly arranged information. 86.185.214.139 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per
  WP:LISTN

As a matter of practical advice,

WP:MINREF. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually,

Disruptive Editing. Please don't do that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, DESiegel, it's controversial (challenged or likely to be challenged) material that MINREF applies to. But inaccuracy is not the only reason for removing unsourced material. All content on Wikipedia needs to be, even more importantly than accurate, verifiable. I'm not saying that all unreferenced content needs to be removed because it compromises verifiability. But the fact that this article was tagged with {{no footnotes}} means that somebody already thinks there is a problem. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes content needs to be verifiable. It does not, however, need to be verified. Merely putting a general tag on an article does not make every statement in the article controversial. Are there specific statements you think controversial, Finnusertop? If so, which and why? Given the range of general references already cited, I rather doubt that any of the content here is not verifiable. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least the two already tagged inline with "verification needed". I don't disagree with anything you've said. Just pointing out that the article has a persistent problem because it doesn't have inline citations and it's been noticed by several users. Any removal of content at this point would certainly not be disruptive. If Basilosauridae were to stand by their words, then the logical outcome would be to remove all those statements where "without inline citations it is almost impossible to tell" if something is OR or not. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are innumerable 'list of...' pages without citations to blue-linked articles, and this one doesn't need to be blown up because someone doesn't happen to like it. It meets
  WP:LISTN, and I support the keep rationales of 86.185.214.139 and Finnusertop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Moyes (talk • contribs) 08:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep its very much within policy and there is no reason to delete. 86.185.214.139 has put it very well.--Kevmin § 00:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per
  WP:PRESERVE. This is not OR and while it should be better sourced, that ids not a valid reason to delete it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

thanks all for your feedback. I will use your suggestions to challenge the material in the article that I think is questionable. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:39, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Craig DiLouie

Craig DiLouie (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 Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Bearcat, I felt I was complying with the WP:SELFPUB rule, and another editor had previously accepted these sources. I replaced the sources as requested, which I hope are satisfactory. There is a citation requested for the claim I was born in New Jersey, but I can't prove that using a link. Should I delete the claim? Notability is not claimed due to the awards but instead under the Wikipedia policy, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Should I cite reviews following each work? I welcome your guidance to make the page compliant with Wikipedia's policies and ideally remove the AfD. Thank you! Craig DiLouie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombieapocalypsenow (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a good number of solid
  independent reliable sources with substantial in-depth coverage of this person can be found. I can't find any, though he seems to get a good number of passing mentions for his expertise in electrical lighting. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm confused about the application of Wikipedia's policies, which state an author is notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The above editor comment seems to say the author is only notable if there are articles online that describe the author him or herself. In the case of many authors, there are instead numerous articles written about their work, not them personally, which satisfies the literal text of the Wikipedia policy. I would be happy to cite numerous reviews by reputable reviewers for these books, which have been published by major publishers, nominated for awards, translated in multiple languages, and optioned for screen. I'm really hoping for a dialogue to improve the page, if that's possible. Thank you. Zombieapocalypsenow (talk) 22:12, 17 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syscoin

Syscoin (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)

Advertisement for yet another non-notable cryptocurrency. Entirely sourced to advert/tech blogs, press releases, and social media. The advert tone could be fixed, but the notability problem would remain: I can find no significant coverage in independent sources or in-depth third party

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete given challenges of finding any RS to help establish notability. As nom points out current sourcing is poor. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no claim of notability, and the current article is largely promotional bullshit.
  π, ν) 19:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I fail to understand how you don't see Syscoin as a notable crypto currency. It has been around and been actively under development for almost 10 years! I mean like every single day. No other cryptos can really say this besides Bitcoin. 2001:569:5155:FC00:ADEF:F4C6:C4E9:AEAD (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - oh my, lots and lots of completely promotional BS, including a section on "features" with a formatted list of sub-features and then planned features in the next section. Promotional. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:38, 13 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

McArthur Lake, Ontario

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

)

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

New article about the same lake previously deleted at

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. It is a fair-sized lake, accessible by road. The article is based entirely on reliable sources, which give a reasonable amount of useful information about it. A search in Google books shows various other sources that discuss different aspects of the lake, particularly mineralogy. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the size of a lake, nor its accessibility or lack thereof by road, is an inclusion criterion for lakes in and of itself. Maps and directories are not notability-conferring sources, either, because they do not represent media coverage about the lake — and even your Google Search results bring up namechecks of the lake's existence in sources that are not about the lake, which still do not assist in establishing the lake's notability. The notability of a lake is established by historical, political or social context, not just by being technically able to reference the geological composition of its bedrock. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the guidelines that says only media coverage confers notability, or that historical, political or social context is needed. Any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent contributes to notability, and any useful type of information is appropriate. In this case, there is obviously considerable interest in the mineral potential of the lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The base notability criterion, the one from which all other more specific criteria derive and the one that even a topic that technically meets an SNG still has to also satisfy, is that it is the subject of

reliable source coverage about it. And no, not just "any source that may reasonably be considered reliable and independent" contributes to notability — maps do not, indiscriminate government directories of every geographic location that exists within that government's terrain of jurisdiction do not, and on and so forth. A source has to represent editorial content about the topic, in magazines or newspapers or books or radio/TV broadcasts, to contribute toward notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The editorial content rule is a new one to me. That means that just about every article on a butterfly should be deleted: no editorial content in the media, no historical, political or social context, just reference books and scientific papers. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly species get written about by reliable sources: reference books, for example, are still books, and botany literature is a thing too. And "historical, political or social context" is an issue with regard to geographic topics, not flora and fauna. The base rule for geographic topics is that we have to be able to reference more about the topic than just "it exists and here are some of its statistics" — every lake that exists at all is referenceable to maps and government directories of geographic names, but every lake that exists at all is not automatically notable just for existing, which is why lakes have to meet a higher standard of significance than just being verifiable as existing. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. I always thought that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Where is the special rule for geographical topics stated? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not in conflict with what I said — what I said is a clarification and expansion of what "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" means. Maps and government geoname databases, for starters, do not represent significant coverage about the lake, glancing namechecks of the lake's existence in coverage about other things (i.e. the Google Books search results you showed) do not represent significant coverage about the lake, and the only other source you've added here completely fails to even mention the lake at all and thus does not represent significant coverage about the lake. So you haven't shown any evidence that McArthur Lake passes the "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" at all — all you've shown is nominal verification that the lake exists, when

original research about the lake itself — which is also against Wikipedia's rules. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I added a couple more sources. Government of course so they were just doing their job and the data came from volunteers, who say water quality is good, although no journalists checked the results. I stayed clear of the fishing lodges, which would be advertising. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is also recently-closed
  wp:POINTY perhaps, i.e. disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that every lake with MacArthur in its name needs a Wikipedia article, begging the question of "Why???". Deleting all would be best. --Doncram (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and prev. Afd decision and redirect to McArthur Lake#Ontario, where it has a paragraph. That's more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of this information. Seems a little too long to merge into McArthur Lake#Ontario, otherwise that would be ok. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of a reason why this lake is a thing readers need information about in the first place? That's the question that requires answering here, because we're not an

indiscriminate collection of "all information that exists" — we have standards to determine what kinds of information we should be maintaining and what kinds we should not. The controlling question is not just whether readers would be "deprived" of this information if we deleted it, because every single person, place or thing who exists at all could always technically answer that question with a yes — the question is whether there's a reason why the topic is important enough that its non-inclusion in Wikipedia would be "depriving" readers of anything they need to know. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Can I go fishing on McArthur Lake? Yes, it's used for recreation and there are over 20 camps and cottages there. I might get walleye or northern pike, but I'd better not go in the winter because the lake is frozen over. It looks beautiful in the photo but the map shows it's a little out of the way. I didn't know any of that before I read the article. Station1 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can go fishing on very nearly every lake that exists at all, unless you'll get arrested for trespassing because it's on private property (and even then you can still try), or it's so badly polluted that the fish are dead (and even then you can still try). In Canada, basically every lake freezes over in the winter except the Great Lakes, and even the Great Lakes freeze over too if the weather stays cold enough for long enough. And since ice fishing is a thing, even the fact that a lake has frozen over for the winter still doesn't prevent you from going fishing. So nope, you haven't "learned" anything that makes this lake notable, because you haven't stated anything that makes it different from every other lake that exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that I won't get arrested for trespassing and that not all the fish are dead. Are there also camps and cottages at

Bolton Lake (Cochrane District, Ontario), Cariad Lake, Kesagami Lake, or Gillies Lake, and can I get northern pike and walleye there? Some of them seem smaller but Gillies Lake does have wheelchair access and a swimming area. McArthur Lake might not have one, because of the rocky shore. The point is that this article has more information than many, maybe most, articles about lakes, and assuming the author got the information from reliable sources, the lake must be notable. It hurts no one for this information to remain and might be helpful to someone. More knowledge is better than less knowledge. Station1 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

None of which are valid reasons in and of themselves why a lake needs an encyclopedia article about it. On the types of sources shown here, it would be possible to write an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world — no lake ever fails to show up on a map, for example — but we can't feasibly sustain an article about every single lake that exists at all anywhere in the world. What a lake requires, to qualify for a Wikipedia article, is evidence that it's more notable than most other lakes for some substantive reason (such as at least the ability to show that the lake has been the subject of substantive coverage about it), not just the ability to verify that it's on maps and there are fish in it. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No lake needs an article about it. It will go on as it is, whether or not we have an article. The only difference is that fewer people will know about it. Why would we want fewer people to know about it? Station1 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person, place or thing who exists at all, including you, me, my dead cat and the park bench behind my apartment building, could make the exact same argument that a Wikipedia article is necessary because "people won't know about it otherwise" — what needs to be answered is not "why would we want fewer people to know about it?", but "why is it our job to care how many people will or won't know about it?". The way any article about anything gets into Wikipedia is "enough reliable source coverage about it exists to demonstrate that it passes a notability criterion", not just "it exists and here's a map and a photograph to prove it" — what an article needs to be keepable is an affirmative reason why it's important for people to know about it, namely passage of a notability criterion and

reliable source coverage about it to support an article. "Fewer people will know about it otherwise" — once again, an argument which every single person, place or thing who has ever existed at all could always make — is not a keep rationale in and of itself absent a reason why it's important for people to know about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think this particular lake is notable. I base that on the fact that someone was able to write a moderately substantial article about it using other than original research; it has more information and sources than many similar articles. Your threshold for notability is much higher than mine. That's simply a difference of opinion. Station1 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the only sources they used to write that article were maps, an indiscriminate government directory of every single geographic name that exists anywhere in all of Canada, and a tangential source which verifies the bedrock geology of the overall region without even mentioning the lake at all in the process. That is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a lake notable — and while you're certainly right that my threshold for notability is higher than yours, you're wrong about which of our thresholds for notability is in alignment with Wikipedia's threshold. (Hint: that would be mine.) Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said anything about whose threshold was aligned with WP's. I'll just point out Category:Lakes of Cochrane District for comparables. Station1 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling about where the above comment may lead – could be the start of a mass extinction. Just as long as nobody tries to delete any lakes in Category:Lakes of Peterborough County. Don't even think about Little Lake. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets GNG per multiple sources per the above book search. No reason to delete this info, especially considering the potential redirect article is up for deletion as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly identify specifically what sources in the Google Books search are about the lake in any substantive and non-trivial way — sources which mention the lake in the process of being about something else are not the same thing as sources about the lake. We look at the quality, not the raw number, of Google hits when using Google to establish notability — so what sources are about the lake for the purposes of establishing the notability of the lake? Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably not going to like this answer, but this is substantially about the lake. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are just passing mentions, as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two glancing mentions of the lake's existence in a journal article about a different lake is not "substantially" about this lake. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes
  WP:GEOLAND pretty clearly, as far as I can tell. Lots of books on the geology of the area, lots of mentions in Timmins-area publications. SportingFlyer talk 19:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A lake does not pass GEOLAND on "books on the geology of the area" — a lake passes GEOLAND on sources in which the lake itself is the subject of the source, of which there have been zero shown but maps and routine indiscriminate databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Passes
  Rusf10 (talk
  ) 23:08, 14June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Wealways keep articles on named geographical feature unless they are of utterly trivial size. WP contains a gazeteer--this is a specific exemption to NOT INDISCRIMINATE found in the NOT policy. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. GEOLAND is quite explicit that the notability of geographic features is conditional on that feature being the subject of reliable source attention in its own right, independently of simply appearing on maps or in routine geographic names databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section is:

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

There has to be enough material for an encyclopedic article, and more than one source, which is clearly the case here. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources here that are about the lake are maps and an indiscriminate "every geographic name that exists in Canada" directory. There are exactly zero other sources here that are about the lake in any subatantive way, just ones which glancingly mention its existence in the process of being about other things — which is not how you establish a lake as notable enough to clear the GEOLAND bar. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 18 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rupp

Kelly Rupp (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 mayor, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a circumstance where being first does not make you any more or less notable; significant coverage and the points made out by
  routine press, and NPOL is not met by an otherwise unnotable office.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Being first woman mayor of her own small town is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts her from having to show enough
  WP:NPOL #2 — but the only cited reference here is a brief blurb, which isn't enough coverage in and of itself to get her over NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Minco is a place of less than 2000 people. Being the first female mayor of a place with 10 times that many people would not come close to making one notable. For a place this small, being mayor is never, ever going to be a sign of notability. Beyond this, the claim that Rupp was the first female mayor of Minco is totally unverified. The city source does not even mention Rupp at present, other than mentioning her as the publisher of the local paper in the promotional link about that paper, and that mention seems to be saying she wrote that page. In fact, I do not see verfied evidence that Rupp was ever mayor of Minco. The Minco website is clearly a work of non-reliable boosterism, going on about recent increases of population, even though the population in Minco fell between 2000 and 2010. To give the claim of first woman mayor context, we would need to know how long Minco has had a mayor. No sources I see tell us that, and no sources verify the claim to Rupp being the first woman mayor, which even if verfiied would not be enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 15 June 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. Although Sepcat5349 listed several sources in their (very long) keep !vote, I did not find upon inspection anything showing notability under any guideline. Most of the other arguments ("is continuing to grow in notability", "This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years", etc) are not policy based. Randykitty (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zelana Montminy

Zelana Montminy (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)

Potential vanity page. Subject does not appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argument against deletion

Keep The page was approved three years ago and has been active since then. In that time, the subject has grown in notability so I would think that if she met the notability guidelines then, there's no reason she shouldn't now. Especially when she has since released a book and grown in notability. That book was published by a major publisher (HarperCollins) and she is now a speaker for that publisher. The book was covered by publications with large readerships and continues to be discussed in connection with her career as a media personality (more on that below and throughout the article).

Further, I believe this subject does meet Wikipedia's current notability guidelines. For Entertainers (which the subject could fall under), Wikipedia has the criteria that the subject:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

The subject has appeared in numerous multiple television shows on a recurring basis including nationally syndicated shows like The Dr Oz Show, The Today Show, Access Live and The Doctors. She's also appeared on numerous local (local being LA so a large market) and web-based programs.

She has made and is making contributions to her academic field of psychology. She has been referred to in Psychology Today (an independent, neutral publication) as a "health and wellness expert in the field of positive psychology." Multiple other publications have referred to her as a leading expert in the field of positive psychology.

She also meets the Academic notability criteria of

The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

The subject consistently brings attention to the field of positive psychology through her work in the media (mentioned above and cited throughout the article).

She is currently developing curriculum for Pepperdine University and will soon join the university as an adjunct professor (proof of this can be provided via email as it has not yet been made public). She's already led a distinguished lecture series at Pepperdine. Additionally, Common Sense Media has asked her to join their Advisory Council and she has spoken at health-related conferences like this one hosted at UCLA (this is a PR link so obviously it won't be included in the article, but I wanted to showcase it here). I say all this to note that the subject both is a significant contributor to her academic field and is continuing to grow in notability within it and outside of it.

I think to say that the subject simply sometimes writes articles is a bit reductive as she is featured in major publications that bring attention to her academic field of study.

The Notability article states:

For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.

I am grateful to user Calliopejen1 for their work in editing Wikipedia articles. They recently even rejected a new page I attempted to publish and I understand their reasoning for that one. However, for this one, they seem to be suggesting that because there is not coverage necessarily about the subject that the subject is not notable. In other words, they are focusing on whether or not the subject is “famous” or “popular" which as noted should be secondary in consideration of these articles. My argument is not that the subject’s page is justified because they are “famous” or “popular”, but rather that the subject makes significant contributions to her academic field through the media in which she is frequently working in and meets notability guidelines because of this. I could simultaneously make the argument that she is famous or popular through the fact that her book is well-regarded and sold well (it was No. 1 on Amazon’s Mental Health Hot New Releases) or that her work has endorsements from numerous noteworthy figures, but those are already in the article.

This page has been active under Wikipedia’s guidelines for three years. It has never been deemed as not notable or inappropriate and I have yet to see a reason as to why that should change now especially as the subject has grown in notability. If there is verbiage in the article that makes it feel too much like a vanity page, I am happy to accommodate suggested edits as I do believe in maintaining neutrality and objectivity as an editor of this page and as a new member of the Wikipedia community. However, the argument being made with regard to Notability simply does not make much sense to me as the page was deemed notable three years ago and I see no real argument as to why that should not be the case now.

Once again, as a frequent user of Wikipedia - I greatly value the work the volunteer editorial team does here. If there are things that need to be done to address objectivity or neutrality in the article, I am happy to address them either now or moving forward. But I do object to the argument about the subject's Notability and hope that I have adequately addressed those concerns here. Sepcat5349 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the prior commenter is a paid editor for a Montminy company. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1 Yes - thank you for pointing that out, and I mean that genuinely as I never intended to conceal it and hope that is clear from my user page containing the disclosure in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Again, I greatly value objectivity and neutrality and disclosed my association so that any edits I made would be kept in check if necessary. I am happy and willing to accommodate anything that doesn't come across as neutral or objective - even if it means that I do not edit the page anymore. In keeping with that, I would be happy to restore the page to the state it was in before I made edits as I did not create the page nor did I make any edits on it until just recently.

Again, if objectivity or neutrality is the issue, I believe we can reach a solution that does not involve deleting the page. If the issue remains to be notability, then I hope that I have answered concerns over that effectively in my initial post.Sepcat5349 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I really thought that this article would pass GNG. Despite the above claims of meeting NPROF, NENT, and NAUTHOR I think the article's subject does not satisfy any of those criteria (and to avoid my own wall of text am not going in depth as to why, but would be happy to do so on request). But the general claims made above seemed strong and I thought with some effort I could find sources that would go towards GNG. Searching multiple newspaper databases I found no coverage of her at all, not even for the book (for which a much better claim of notability can be made). I lost patience in my Google searches because her TV appearances are what come up. In the end she seems like some YouTube personalities - no doubt out there and being watched but doesn't satisfy our standards of notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geeks.com

Geeks.com (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 about a company, referenced exclusively to its own

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Older reviews have references to coverage in the
  π, ν) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete - Per nom. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:25, 12 June 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.

Gerald Vernon-Jackson

Gerald Vernon-Jackson (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 Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which we have always held to be notable under
  WP:ANYBIO #1. Also not just any councillor, but leader of the council of a major city. As Portsmouth has the cabinet system, that means his post is essentially an executive position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Being leader of the council is no notability freebie in and of itself, and "major city" has nothing to do with the notability criteria for city councillors. A city councillor must serve in an internationally famous global city, such as New York City, Toronto or London, to get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — outside of that range, a city councillor (even the leader of the council) qualifies for inclusion only if he or she can be referenced to nationalizing coverage that marks him or her out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. There is no loophole in there for council leaders in non-global but still subjectively "major" cities — it's either "global city" or "sourced well enough to be special", and there are no grey areas anywhere in between those two things. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you'd like to explain why we have so many articles on mayors of American cities much smaller than Portsmouth that get kept at AfD? That seems to me to be a precedent for the executive heads of cities of this size to be kept. But be that as it may, his CBE still qualifies him for an article. And there is massive precedent for that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I apologise that it's taken me so long to respond here, but as Leader of the Council of a major city and the recipient of a CBE (as Necrothesp notes above me), he fulfils the needed criteria to be 'notable'. Issues with citing and referencing are my fault, which I do apologise for. BitterGiant (talk) 17:15, 13 June 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 City region. Mz7 (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of European city regions

List of European city regions (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)

Unsourced, incomplete and too ill-defined ever to be completed, overlaps with List of metropolitan areas in Europe#Polycentric metropolitan areas in the European Union Batternut (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article seems to be similar with other Wikipedia articles and hence I also don't think it would be worthwhile to complete comprehending the fact that the article does not seem quite relevant for the topic. Denver| Thank you (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I couldn't quickly find sources to back this up, but I do lean keep as city region is a defined term which has been the subject of academic research and a list of them might be a valid split. The biggest current problem with the article is a lack of sources, not its incompletion or definition. SportingFlyer talk 18:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect [was "Merge"], probably to City region, which already includes links to a number of these, and which could easily include a proper list (it is not a very long article, no need to split this out). This current list-article doesn't link to city region though, and there is no supporting source for any of the items being identified as "city regions", so the current list-article seems very weak. Development of a list back in the context of a defined term and some sources, etc., would be better. The entire content here could be copy-pasted to Talk:City region with a request that the items be considered for inclusion in that article. --Doncram (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Redirect" from "Merge" as it seems maybe there is no content that should be merged, given question below by User:Batternut about very few entries actually claiming to be city regions. Redirect is okay as an alternative to deletion which saves the original list in edit history, in case anyone wants to resurrect a few items later, if they can separately find relevant sources. It is helpful to know that part of this (the only portion with a source?) was copied from the city region article. There is no need for a list to be split out from the city region article, which is short. --Doncram (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment many entries in this list do not have articles, many are Eurodistricts (= transnational urban areas), some are just local enterprise partnerships, a very UK specific entity. Very few entries actually claim to be city regions - in the other cases it seems to be pure OR to call them city regions. Some may be pure fiction, eg the "Venetian Triangle". The definition was copied in 2015 from the city region article. Batternut (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (as proposer), for the reasons given by Doncram (above). Batternut (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as proposed by Doncram. Article content is garbage and I doubt if anyone is ever going to improve it. No accepted definition of what actually qualifies to be included. Lyndaship (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to a relevant article that has "city region" in the title. City regions are city regions, not to be confused with anything else. wumbolo ^^^ 21:40, 14 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revivent

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

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

Article on a product which is supported by two medical studies, both sponsored by the company. No independent sources. Creator has

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Hey
  PMID 29435772 has a disclosure
  that "Tobias Schmidt receives lecture honoraria from CardioKinetix and Bioventrix." The other review has no disclosures at all, oddly, but none of the authors work for BioVentrix.

I agree that this article is minimal, but in my view it is valid.

With regard to the creator, see what they said here. No paper that was originally cited is still in the page, so even

WP:SELFCITE

is not relevant anymore.

And as noted above, with regard to "supported by two medical studies, both sponsored by the company. No independent sources." None of those three clauses is accurate. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jytdog's assessment. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Jytdog rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 13 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Kulkarni

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

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

This is borderline notability, but simply doesn't quite pass. He directed one film, so doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom - Can't find any evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 16 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Janela

Joey Janela (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 wrestler Galatz^Talk 15:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz^Talk 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had done a search after I saw the article for the first time and I could find nothing in a Google search to support the claim of notability as a professional wrestler. Alansohn (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 09:49, 16 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afgana

Gurbakhsh Singh Kala Afgana (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 found this page and its talk page sitting deleted under pages Kala Afgana (about a village) and Talk:Kala Afgana. Is it worth keeping? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources indicate at all that his work is impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• See Google search for his name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sbbarker19: In adding those sources, do you feel like it meets the threshold of notability? Sadads (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as reliable sources references have been added to the article which shows that the subject passes
  WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 11:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete-Fails to garner
  reliable
  sources.Let's analyse the references:-
  • Ref (1)--No known editorial policy.Fails the requirement of being a
    reliable source
    . N
  • Ref (2)--Self-declared advocacy site.The mention in the source is trivial.N
  • Ref (3)--Clear-cut Sikh Advocacy site.Another trivial mention. N
  • Ref (4)--A biography at Site (2).The bio cites a bunch of independent sources except that all of them are used to support general commentary and almost none mentions Afghana. N
  • Ref(5)--Reliable source.Mentioned in a list of people who has been excommunicated.?~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:03, 15 June 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.

O Parvardigar (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)

Since, everybody is free to remove a PROD, without addressing the reason(s) for in

I'm unable to find/locate any non-trivial coverage of the film demanded by our

It may be noted that all the sources that are currently in the article or were attempted by the creator to be inserted in the article fails one of our core

• Pinging Hoverfish, as a co-participant in many of the discussions, on the same locus.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should actually be listed on the India WikiProject page here and the WikiProject Film talk page, here. This is a film. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 14:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-ntable short film, no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying
  WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Significant work of
  WP:INDAFD)). Accesscrawl (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Read
    WP:AADD.And, it's expected that since both the nominator (me) and the other !voter (GSS) are Indian, we ought be able to exploit Indian sources...~ Winged Blades^Godric 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Strong delete There has been no presentation of any 3rd party sources covering this work at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Pete Townshend connection to the film constitutes a source, and this film is listed on the Townshend template as one of three DVD's attributed to the singer/songwriter. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source, please? And, I've removed this article from Pete's discography template since the inclusion makes precisely zero sense.Also, see about our prohibition on
    circular referencing.∯WBG^converse 01:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • A source that the film exists and is prominent? Already on the page. I know it is unhelpful to your attempt to remove this article from Wikipedia that Pete Townshend, a notable and prominent singer-songwriter, is heavily involved. I've reverted your edit on the Townshend template, and now I see that you've put a notability and other tags on
      Townshend's album of the same name. Yes, Pete Townshend is heavily involved, but removing mention of that from pages and templates on Townshend on an encyclopedia is not the way to precede. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • No body is doubting the existence of the film.We are doubting it's prominence, in that it has failed to secure any major reviews/independent coverage.Best,∯WBG^converse 08:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Merge and redirect to
  Parvardigar Prayer. There is a reliable source attesting to the existence of the film and Townshend's participation in it in the book Who Are You: The Life Of Pete Townshend, p, 318. Omnibus Press. However, that's not enough for a stand-alone article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A good source, and more than a trivial mention. This is actually enough to establish the notability of this article. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I provided it, in my view, that source does not establish sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Townshend is very notable, but that does not make any and every entity with which he has been associated de facto notable if there is not sufficient in-depth coverage of the entity itself. Note that a merge would not preclude adding the piped redirect to Template:Pete Townshend. Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's little properly-sourced stuff to merge.Basically, the existence is demonstrated.A redirect, at best.∯WBG^converse 09:54, 19 June 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 and redirect to SM Supermalls. Randykitty (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Manila

SM City Manila (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)

Found no independent reliable sources establishing notability. The page was unilaterally redirected by

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing - can't quite follow what happened there re draftifying back and forth, and apparently in lieu of some deletion process...? - Anyway. I can find plenty of passing mentions as well as promotional material by the proprietors, but no independent substantial coverage, which would suggest delete.--Elmidae (talk · contribs)
• (Absent location of additional sources) Redirect to SM Supermalls. I checked for sources and couldn't find much of anything, but it's difficult to look given that there is so much junk containing the phrase "SM City Manila". 15:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to SM Supermalls. No evidence of notability. This was already redirected and restarted by an known disruptive editor: [3]. Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foivos Christodoulou

Foivos Christodoulou (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)