Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2018 March 30

Body Positive Movement

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

Something needs to be done about this. The article seems to have been a class assignment, and as a result--in typical fashion--it turned into an essay full of SYNTH and OR. I started cleaning out some of the unrelated material, but what will be left? We can't have an article on a vague, general term, and as it turns out, underneath this article, deep in its history, it was always an essay--see this. So, while it is clear that there are various things going on in the world that are related to the body and its image as portrayed in media, health, and entertainment, this article is not the way to get at that for Wikipedia's purposes. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SYNTH issues are almost unfixable for a general essay topic like this one. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is notable because the movement is also about bodyshaming which is really present nowadays on social media and in the real life. People who are going through this have to know that there is a movement advocating acceptation of their bodies. And the fact that we have famous models like Ashley Graham and Iskra Lawrence and many others personalities as poet and author make the article more notable.Irma2403 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notable topic yes, but there is nothing to salvage from this essay. The only alternative would be to stub it. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY. – Craig Davison (talk) 07:32, 5 April 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. Sandstein 06:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Transit fleet roster

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

Long list of busfan trivia. Poorly sourced original research.

WP:NOR Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per
WP:ATD, I think at least some of the information can be summarised and merged into Guelph Transit. The main article doesn't have any information about the fleet. At least the material in this page could be used and a short paragraph added with citations.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As with other recent articles of this type that came up for AFD and got deleted, we are not interested in cataloguing the exact make and model of every individual bus in a city's public transit fleet. It's not important information that an encyclopedia needs to retain, it's not even interesting information to anyone outside of a small clique of bus-spotters, it changes as old brokedown buses are taken out of service and new ones are purchased and deployed, and it's not
self-published content. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Although I agree that summary information about the bus fleet is appropriate for the main article, this roster is unsourced, and I would not be in favour of merging unsourced information. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 5 April 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in U.S population

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

It’s an essay. The article reads as though it were a research paper rather than an encyclopedic entry. It has very few sources, most of which (to my knowledge) only support the statistics, which would classify as

WP:HEY is possible. _{Vermont | reply here} 21:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's main contributor states on their user page that they are a student editor, explaining the article looking more like a research paper than an encyclopaedic entry. StewdioMACK (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the instructor's talk page informing them. _{Vermont | reply here} 00:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NOTESSAY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per
Demography of the United States. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - there is already
Demography of the United States which would contain any information on altering population levels. It's fairly active as well, so it might be worth the individual considering working/talking there. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as a
essentially unsourced synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Forsch

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

Lack of in-depth coverage in

WP:BIO. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Delete - Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a thorough search turned up no RS. Fails GNG.104.163.147.121 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any RS, plus SPA creator's username implies COI: Special:Contributions/Laurenforsch Theredproject (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Sweder

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

No evidence of notability under either

WP:BEFORE are bare directory-type listings (e.g.,Tufts player profile or assistant coach profile on a high-school travel team). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Delete Little if any coverage of the subject in RS. Per nom, fails GNG and SPORTBASIC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did try to improve this article which formerly implied he was the coach of a championship winning side but I found he was only the assistant coach so it was corrected. Agree does not pass
WP:SNGs Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per nom. Fails
WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:51, 2 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Brief History of Equations

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

Contested PROD. This is... really just a

personal essay spanning multiple topics. Not sure there's a particularly plausible redirect in there anywhere. GMG ^talk 19:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's mostly a paraphrase (occasionally close) of the references cited, and adds nothing to History of physics. The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Wikipedia is
not a publisher of personal essays. Anything substantial that this article could cover would likely be better suited to history of physics. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete As above. Also, the title is misleading, as suggesting wrongly that it is about the history of Theory of equations. D.Lazard (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- This is a random collection of some important physics equations, not an encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree that this is an essay which
Wikipedia is not a collection of. -- Dane ^talk 03:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - As all above.--
talk) 09:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Per NOT and SYNTH. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a clearly defined article topic appropriate for wikipedia (and extremely low quality in any case). Mathchecker (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ESSAY concerns. fork of List of equations and History of mathematics.Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Arrivano i dollari!

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

Fails

WP:NFILM - nothing in the article establishes notability. Kirbanzo (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has 2 reliable sources book references. As it has a notable director and cast and a theatrical release it is hard to imagine that it was not reviewed in reliable sources but as it was released in 1957 those reviews are not on the internet or very hard to find Atlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Have just found one reliable newspaper review that is quoted in the Italian wikipedia article here. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 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.

Keep I can't imagine any films starring Alberto Sordi as not notable! Hoverfish Talk 15:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Katten Muchin Rosenman

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

A legal firm with no evidence of notability. The first ref is self written and others show it is a nice place to work according to one web-site. A minor controversy is hardly a notable event and then nothing that demonstrates notability. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the merger of two firms that have WP articles. They are listed on many best of lists.-
WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment That something else exists is not an indicator of notability. It is equally possible that the other two firms also lack notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a large, prominent law firm whose activities have received substantial coverage over the years. In addition to the items already mentioned, this firm was the subject of substantial coverage for its involvement in a well-publicized race discrimination lawsuit that led to a controversial $2.5 million jury verdict, followed by an also controversial 2-1 reversal by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and a widely-reviewed book about all of this entitled The Good Black. A few examples of coverage (lots more can be seen in the usual searches): New York Times [1], Harvard Law Review [2], Chicago Tribune [3], Washington Post [4][5]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here are a couple of articles about the firm's representation of Michael Jackson and other entertainment figures. Chicago Tribune [6], Los Angeles Daily Journal [7]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:02, 30 March 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.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

PragmaDev Studio

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

No evidence of notabilty. No references, and searches reveal nothing reliable and indepedent that speaks to notability. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see thirteen references in further reading, most of which were discussed in the previous AfD (which I initiated) See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Time Developer Studio. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have re-organized the article and added references. Now there are 18 references, mostly scientific publications presented during recognized international conferences where the papers are reviewed by their peers. I hope this demonstrates the notability, if so please consider removing the notices. --Manu31415 (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per Walter Görlitz and Manu31415. The coverage available in books and articles satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Passes GNG per sources already in the article. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:22, 30 March 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Rialto Network

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

Fails

Rusf10 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as the article does have some rs coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 09:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a directory listing at best; does not meet
WP:NORG
. There's also an odd para about a 3rd party company, so one wonders about the promotional purpose of this:

"Rialto Network is powered by the Tightrope Media Systems. Tightrope Media Systems is a digital media company that develops broadcast solutions for multiple platforms including television, over-the-top content, Internet streaming, and mobile devices"!

No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:
verifiably through reliable sources". Local station per the subjects website: "Rialto Community Network is a community development project based in Rialto area of Dublin. We work to address poverty disadvantage and social exclusion in this area of South West Dublin City.". Otr500 (talk) 07:23, 4 April 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Muriel Lester Cooperative House

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

No notable house that lacks any quality to be on encyclopedia. Another remnant of pre-notability period. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to section on this house in
wp:ATD
alternatives to deletion, to avoid losing credit to contributors, etc., for when separate article is more obviously justified by more sources being available. Would-be AFD nominators should take note, should consider making merger proposals rather than starting AFDs. Unless running up some kind of deletion score is their goal.

What the heck is meant by "pre-notability period"? Seems like something derogatory is meant, out of some kind of recentism bias? But any topic once notable, is always notable. --Doncram (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a house with 15 residents hardly rates an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But why not merge to the list-article which already mentions it. It is mention-worthy...because it is mentioned. We are supposed to find

wp:ATD alternatives to deletion where possible, as here. --Doncram (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Delete there is no encyclopedic information to be merged. That the house serves vegan meals and that the basement is used for food storage is drivel that does not belong here. While Inter-Cooperative Council at the University of Michigan seems like a notable subject, most of the information on individual houses don't belong in that article - WP is not a directory of all information. At most a redirect. MB 02:33, 4 April 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 Glossary of video game terms#H. Sandstein 06:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Head swap

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

Non-notable video game term, basically just a redux of the TV Tropes article of the same name and essentially

WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of video game terms - No entry there on head swap yet, but someone can edit in a couple sentences there no problem, sticking to a straight definition rather than the examplecruft which populates the article as it is now. I haven't seen the sort of coverage on head swaps that would justify giving the term its own article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
- Should it REALLY have an entry there though? I can't find anything supporting the article's assertion that it's "famous" - or even a well known term. Reliable sources hardly mention it, and it's certainly not of interest to your typical gamer. It seems like minutia that doesn't need a mention on Wikipedia and is more fit for TV Tropes.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not famous, hence why I don't support it having its own article. Whether it's of interest to readers... I dunno. I tried running site-specific searches for GameSpot and IGN using Goodsearch and came up with zero uses of the phrase. On the other hand, it was most likely at the height of its usage in the pre-internet era. So again, I dunno. I was hoping someone else would have thoughts on this.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a notification at Talk:Glossary of video game terms since I suggested a new entry to that article above, and we could really use more respondents here anyway.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
List of video game terms as per Martin IIIa. The article could actually build up to be notable if it covered both this and the increasing usage of use of a real person's head over another - which used to be limited to professional CGI. Putting that aside, I certainly would say there is enough for a couple of of lines in the List. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:13, 6 April 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.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Torre di Roccabruna

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

Nominating this for deletion as I couldn't find a CSD criteria for it. No references, does not appear to be notable in any way. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no references to speak of, and I couldn't find any with a BEFORE search. SportingFlyer talk 05:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are actually two Roccabruna towers. The one in Siena described in the article and in its Italian homologue(mentioned a.o. in [8], [9], [10]). The other, arguably more notable, is part of the Hadrian Villa complex in Tivoli near Rome ([11], [12], [13], [14] and many more). 37.117.118.138 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I found an Engish source and linked the article to its Italian homologue. Nowadays it's not the most important building of Siena, but imho it has its own history and the article can be of some interest.--Pampuco (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Pampuco that it's not the most important building in Siena, but it's quite notable. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 30 March 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.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Frak (expletive)

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

Seems to be a non-notable dicdef, the rest is

WP:OR. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agreed with the OR concern so I have undertaken a small cleanup. What's left is not substantial, yet I can see many references to this terminology dating back quite some time (google news of the archives returns relevant results). I think it's notable in a niche sense (particularly in the video game industry or certain television series) and I am seeing enough on searches that seems to suggest it has a usage history. Page views seem fairly modest too (i.e. it doesn't seem to be that obscure). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much everything in the "Other uses" section, and the 2nd paragraph of the lede is
  WP:SYNTH and should be removed. The last sentence of the lede is trivia also and shouldn't be in the article. There is no evidence that those uses of "Frak" are linked to the Battlestar Galactica one. They could very well have arisen independently of one another. "Etymology" is the only real content in the article worth keeping and that's small enough that it doesn't need its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I don't think the "other uses" section is now that bad. I have no personal experience with the term or really care too much if it gets deleted or not, hence why I did a search including archive news/sources which did return relevant results over a reasonable period of time. My own judgement was based on those search results, coupled with the consistent page views and a potential for someone who cares to develop the article to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 30 March 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 Narratology. Any merging etc. is an editorial decision. Sandstein 06:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Story and Discourse

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

Structured as an essay, not an encyclopedia article. No single redirect target; perhaps some of this could be included on

π, ν) 15:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a case for splitting this article into two articles, one about 'story' and the other about 'discourse'. But that is not something that automatically happens when we have an article about two closely related things, because such articles are permissible under the wording of the introduction to N. "No single redirect target" is an argument for a history merge without redirect. That is not technically a deletion. Further, when we have a choice of targets, we can pick the most likely, rather than not have a redirect. "Essay" is an argument for a rewrite, or for a transwiki to Wikiversity, where essays are permitted. A rewrite is preferable when the topic is notable and there is not another article specifically about that topic. Since there seems to be a lot of coverage, and I don't see why any content problems can't be fixed by editing, I'm not satisfied that there is a case for outright deletion. James500 (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like the issues may be surmountable, but this topic is beyond my expertise. That said, the topic sounds to me similar to Fabula and syuzhet, or Plot (narrative). I wonder if some merging is in order – or if not, at least some cross-linking. Cnilep (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, it does look like a
WP:NOTESSAY, it is a sub section of narratology but much longer and more detailed than that article. There are references so a merge or delete is OK. Szzuk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 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. Any copyvios can (must, of course) be revedeleted, but there is no consensus at this point to delete the artice on either copyright or notability grounds.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Elisakh Hagia

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

Yet another non-notable performer from paid editor

WP:G12 the entire article. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:TOOSOON as only 10 years old which is a bit problematic concerning the amount of vandalism such articles attract. Most probably will be notable but suggest waiting at least a couple of years and preferably having an unaffiliated editor write it Atlantic306 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Even given the original sourcing of the article, she seems to easily pass
WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" as she's been featured in several major music festivals and on TV. Lonehexagon (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in English sources seems lacking and mostly PR fluff, but Indonesian sources seem to be more promising and do seem to be significant. And with the performances mentioned by Lonehexagon, it appears that she passes our notability guidelines.
csdnew 00:44, 2 April 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. Although leaning Keep, as the delete votes were

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Joycelyn O'Brien

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

Non notable actor.

WP:NACTOR. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

After reviewing the article and this discussion again, I continue to believe this to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines DocumentError (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~No sources and~~ fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NACTOR either. -- Dane ^talk 03:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

I would like to remind you, @

Strong Keep. I've improved the article to better demonstrate her notability. I would like to remind the nominator of this article, and the other users who have voted delete so far, that according to
WP:NACTOR for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and this article should definitely be kept. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NACTOR is fine, but it does not automatically mean everyone agrees with you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per additional content and sources added to the article later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The referenced articles are about the subject rather than incidental mentions, and in significant sources:
GNG. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Disagree, we still need several, reliable sources. A piece by the LA Times where O'Brien describes her experiences on one film does not establish notability for herself. See also my comment above. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is your prerogative to disagree but my position is unchanged. To me there is no room for doubt: if the

WP:BASIC notability guidelines are not met. Dorsetonian (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Comment Soetermans, I appreciate your comments, but like Dorsetonian my position is unchanged. I believe she passes
WP:ACTOR for appearing in a Broadway production, appearing as named roles in movies, and making 3 significant appearances with named roles in major television shows. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have had another look at the article, and my vote to delete, remains unchanged. She has appeared in a few plays, and played some small roles in TV, but nothing major, and the articles don't discuss here in detail. Possbly a case of TOOSOON, and when she has established herself more, there may be more to make her notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. M. Iqbal

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

Being a deputy mayor doesn't bring inherent notability under

WP:BASIC. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local politican, and no covereage to meet
WP:NPOL threshold completely. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Being deputy mayor of a city is not an automatic
WP:GNG, but it's not an inclusion freebie and the sourcing here is nowhere near enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, I’ve searched and at best I can only find mentions in passing, which establish he exists but nothing more. Clearly fails
WP:NPOL. Dan arndt (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and above. Vermont | reply here 09:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video game curse

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

Per discussion

Video game film without needing a separate article. Redirecting the title would also be unsuitable as it is confusing to readers. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Looking at the title alone, I wasn't sure if the author meant the

« Ryūkotsusei »

18:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Uncommon buzzword that's better suited for a merger or just outright deletion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've read a fair bit about video game films and never heard this term before. The section "Theories on causes" has some good content assuming that the sourcing is good and genuinely supports the claims (I haven't looked that deeply into it), and that particular content could be moved to
Video game film.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No suitable redirect target. Please however notice this:
^^^ 19:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Salam (party)

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

Speedy is declined so bringing it up here.. the organisation does not appear to meet basic GNG and even has not non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful, unfortunately.

For what its worth, only a couple of the sections of the International Marxist Tendency are notable entities, such as Socialist Appeal (UK, 1992). Saqib (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-No hits in media-sources, books and/or scholarly sources.I strongly doubt that the party is even remotely significant/visible in Pakistan.~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not sure if such a party even exists. --Spasage (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom nom nom. M A A Z T A L K 14:01, 5 April 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 Nickel titanium. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flexon

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

No indpendent coverage for the brands. Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, it is a brand name for Nickel titanium. Szzuk (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickel titanium - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Miah

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

WP:TOOSOON, some small parts here and there, but basically no depth of coverage whatsoever, just the most passing of mentions in credits. These all look a lot like minor bit parts, and/or appearances as unnamed characters. Maybe in a few years, but not now. GMG ^talk 16:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently notable at this time. Orenburg1 (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it could just be

WP:TOOSOON, but not notable at the time. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 4 April 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. There were policy-based arguments on both sides, yet neither indicating that the community demands the deletion of this particular article (or the converse, for that matter).

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Fuka Nagano

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

An IP dePRODed this article and add this [16], but stil fail

talk) 09:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

talk) 09:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in

talk) 11:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete youth appearances are not enough, fails
WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Fails
WP:PRIMARY as this relates in part to competitions FIFA have organized, although the content discusses the player in detail separate from this. There is also clear evidence of a degree of coverage, though perhaps not significant, in other international media outlets. This leads me to believe that there is probably more to be found in Japanese media, although language barriers prevent me from doing this. Certainly her [Japanese WP article contains a number of articles from Japanese news sources that look like they might be more than trivial. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Agree with
WP:NFOOTY. --SuperJew (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Plenty of notable achievements at regional level to meet the notability guidelines. MurielMary (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. --Gonta-Kun (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she fails NFOOTY, we can safely assume that all the other coverage is trivial and routine and does not therefore pass the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That makes no sense Tony. Just because someone dosent pass NFOOTY doesnt mean they can't pass GNG. Passing NFOOTY presumes passing GNG, but it is not true to say that failing NFOOTY presumes failing GNG. To be honest im not really seeing any decent deletion rationales here. There are sources in the article indicating GNG but no one voting delete seems to be discussing them in any detail. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the awards and the FIFA coverage provide an exception to the NFOOTY guidelines here. Calm Omaha (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(nominator) Although fails
talk) 14:15, 3 April 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

ARY Digital Tower

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

the article is same as it was back in 2007. the building is never built and i think it was just planned. Saqib (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 18:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 1 ref from 2007 saying it is planned, planned projects can be notable but there is no coverage, it is an empty article. Szzuk (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Simply merge it with List of tallest buildings in Dubai. I think that's the best solution. M A A Z T A L K 14:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listing this building to the said list does not make sense because apparently the building does not exists or may never. --Saqib (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a change here, as I didn't check that the building was not built. I thought it was built. I think that it should be redirected to List of tallest buildings in Dubai, because the building is planned and it would be easier to merge it later on after it is built. M A A Z T A L K 05:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was completely unable to find anything on this building at all. Even looking at the coordinates on Google Streetview gives a (as of Dec. 2016) fenced off lot, but no building is visible. As it stands, the subject fails
WP:GNG because it does not have any substantial coverage except for the 2007 article. Agree with Saqib on not merging. Acebulf (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, I found reference that it will be built, but no mention of it was completed.--Spasage (talk) 13:52, 4 April 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Issa Mussa

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

I am not entirely sure here. Maybe someone with more experience can decide.

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
This article possibly contains original research.
This article needs additional citations for verification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of evidence that this content has been persistently reposted following a consensus to delete, changed from delete to delete and salt. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isse Musse and also similar article at Issa Mussa clan which has been nominated for speedy as a re-creation of the deleted page. Eagleash (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article is a repost and copy/paste of the
Habar Awal article, and this article has already been deleted following a previous discussion. The decision should be to speedily delete this article. Linkjan2014 (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added {{salt}} template to the article ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Centrespread

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

I stumbled across this movie while doing my cleanup of

Talk 16:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

It was an Australian feature film that was theatrically released - a not particularly good film but I believe it deserves an entry. Dutchy85 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep if it was theatrically released it had reviews which if not online are most probably offline. The article does reference one reliable source review from The Canberra Times. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already one full length review linked. Unfortunately, others are more likely to exist off-line. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination.

(non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 03:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Paloma brava (film)

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

Non-notable mexican film that only fetches imdb pages, mirrors, torrent sites, and stores when I look it up.

Talk 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Keep finds Variety reviews and Gbook discussion for me. Sources added. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansion work that's been done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been added so that
WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

With drawing nomination Looks like the proper sources have been found for the article; A happy AFD ending. Note to closing admin, this page should be moved to
Talk 17:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chitralian Zubair

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

fails to meet GNG. Saqib (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Acnetj (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per source searches, the subject does not meet
WP:JOURNALIST at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - No evidence of any notability or even significance. I tagged this for CSD but it certainly is way below the standard of
WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, did not find anything significant. --Spasage (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. M A A Z T A L K 10:09, 5 April 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

APSU-TV

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

College tv station, fails

Rusf10 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of non-notable USA college TV station. Polyamorph (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a licensed broadcast station, but rather a cable TV channel operated by students, so no presumption of notability. Absent adequate coverage in reliable and independent sources, the article should be deleted Edison (talk) 22:21, 30 March 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. (Irrelevant note: L3X1, "Give the earth back its secrets" is a delightfully ominous delete comment.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qansax Timir

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

Somali "locality", which means it's just a place and people don't necessarily live there. Satellite imagery shows it's a patch of desert. No sources other than the one database entry used to create the article and some clickbait recycling the same database. Doesn't meet

WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 14:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

delete "Locality" means "non-notable" unless we have some other text about the whatever-it-is, which we do not. Mangoe (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Give the earth back its secrets. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:50, 31 March 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.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply

Barka Mareyshir

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

Somali "locality", which means it's just a place and people don't necessarily live there. Satellite imagery shows it's a patch of desert. No sources other than the one database entry used to create the article and some clickbait recycling the same database. Doesn't meet

WP:NGEO. Hut 8.5 14:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply