Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 12 November 14 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy withdraw. withdrawn by nom

(non-admin closure) — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Jaffa Crvenka

Jaffa Crvenka (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

WP:ROUTINE business press ([2] [3]), and an interview with the company director ([4]). I wasn't able to find any better coverage online in English, although it's possible there's something out there in Serbian or other languages. The articles for this subject in other languages do not have any better sources (although the French one includes links to several different pages on the company website, and the Serbian article includes a link to what appears to be a PDF of a legal document) signed, Rosguill talk 23:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lipsett

Rob Lipsett (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)

Regardless of any possible notability, this is promotionalism. The references are the usual sort of notices and press releases, as expected for people whose career depends on them. we don't have to jhelp them at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 00:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Does it not make more sense to edit it rather than delete it then? Sone3452 (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note you wrote the article. Are you connected with the subject? In answer to your question, his only claim to fame is he has a large number of followers on various social media; definite delete. Spleodrach (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No connection was done rather as part of a university assignment, I rather choose to believe that Wikipedia has a habit of ignoring the importance of the "field" if you will, of the social media micro-celebrities. Whilst I would whole heartedly concede it is ridiculous to include every social media 'micro-celebrity', it would be equally foolish to ignore the more notable ones and in turn ignore the 'field' as a whole, as it's one of the fastest growing, influential, fields of study in todays social media dominated world.Sone3452 (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to bellow where I discussed the notion of the notability of the larger micro-celebrity and question how someone with a growing reach of almost a million people has less notability in todays growing world than obscure Irish poets or outdated movies.Sone3452 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of his fame as a micro-celebrity came before he was featured on any television show, and I think the notion that you would dismiss someone's notability who interacts with close to a million people on a perpetual basis, because of the branding 'micro celebrity' is somewhat foolish. If you choose to consider the reach and impact of these individuals, whilst choosing to mark obscure Irish poets as notable (for example), you risk the chance of becoming outdated and irrelevant. With modern influence and the age of social media, notions like Bourdieu’s theory of the rise of celebrity (1993) have become outdated and rather it is rather apparent that the notability of 'micro-celebrities' in terms of their influence has surpassed that of the traditional celebrity and consequently the idea of a micro-celebrity with a reach of almost 1 million people not being considered notable is a notion that asks do you consider the notability of significant 'micro-celebrities' or risk getting left behind.Sone3452 (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:VPP. SITH (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If you consider his field to be social media influencing, fitness or micro-celebrity, it's hard to make an argument that he doesn't make a widely recognised contribution to it.Sone3452 (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SiteOne Landscape Supply

SiteOne Landscape Supply (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)

Virtually all coverage is

WP:ORGCRITE. I wasn't able to find any non-trivial coverage in an internet search. Of the provided sources, two are borderline-acceptable, but ultimately fall short as well: [11] provides in-depth analysis, but on the second page the author discloses that they were potentially taking a position at the subject within 72 hours of publishing the article, making it possibly not independent (it is unclear if they ever did take the position). [12] provides more depth than most of the PR/routine press, but is primarily an interview, which again raises independence questions (in addition to being published in a publication that also publishes PR releases). Ultimately, even if we take a generous stance on these two articles, the subject doesn't meet the ORGCRITE requirement of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources (emphasis mine). signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:33, 13 November 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. I was on the edge about whether this should be keep or no consensus. Eventually came to the conclusion that a new user whose only contributions are nominating articles for deletion raises some eyebrows, and I've never liked this page is pretty much the canonical example of a a

WP:ATA. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

AfDs for this article:
United States and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Clearly flunks

WP:COATRACK and conspiracy theory
. 1973 Chilean coup d'état and United States intervention in Chile articles state There is no hard evidence of direct U.S. assistance to the coup, despite frequent allegations of such aid.Further supporting a Coup is not Terrorism 99% of the sources the coup was do not say it is Terrorism . Piazza Fontana bombing there was a arrest and trial but the role of the CIA is debatable again a conspiracy theory Most sources say it is
Human Rights Violations in Colombia not terrorism.USA is not directly involved. Los Pepes is not a terrorist group only a paramilitary
fighting drugs It is
Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi do not get coverage. Nervegolgi (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC) — Nervegolgi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Vanamonde (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my !vote. You and Vanamonde (below) make good points. Maproom (talk) 09:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The pages cover clearly distinct tpoics. United States and state terrorism refers to US involvement with so-called state-terrorism; the use of torture, murder, and so forth by national governments that has the support of the US. The page being nominated here is about US support to paramilitary groups that have committed terrorist activities, as described by reliable sources. These activities were in/targeting countries typically unfriendly to the US, such as Cuba or pre-1973 Chile. There are plenty of RS covering this topic; take these, for example, which are both high-quality scholarly sources.[1][2] The nominator has made no edits outside AfD (itself very suspicious) but also has language strikingly similar to that of the account which opened the first AfD on this article. Vanamonde (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grandin & Joseph, Greg & Gilbert (2010). A Century of Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 397–414.
  2. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2004.tb00277.x
    .

Maproom The references given do not say so. Century of Revolution. do not explicitly say that USA enraged in Terrorism the book uses the term Terrorism only 5 times in different contexts.[13] and neither could I find it in the other book.

  • This article only contains about 7 examples .The Main article
  • Piazza Fontana bombing USA involvement is disputed as per reliable sources and there were 3 trials in Italy. USA involvement is only a conspiracy theory.
  • Years of Lead (Italy) local both left-wing and right-wing incidents of political terrorism.USA involvement is debated is not terrorism
  • 1973 Chilean coup d'état and United States intervention in Chile is not terrorism in almost all reliable sources. USA direct involvement in Chilean coup has been debated and most and is a only a conspiracy theory as per most reliable sources.Even then is not Terrorism.Death of Salvador Allende is suicide after almost several investigations.
  • WP:UNDUE
  • Right-wing paramilitarism in Colombia .USA involvement is limited and is Human Rights Violation
  • Los Pepes is an anti Drug movement killing Pablo Escobar and drug lords even if killed extra judicially is not terrorism only Human Rights Violations.
  • I say the old nomination which is 3 year old and took some points do not see anything wrong in it.

Nervegolgi (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, well-sourced article. Most of the CIA activities amount to this. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that the US has sponsored terrorism is wholly mainstream, much of the article is robustly sourced after months of work by editors of differing political opinions, and the nominator is pretty obviously a sock. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced article on a notable topic. State terrorism is terrorism by the state; state-sponsored terrorism is the state sponsoring terrorism by others. The two articles shouldn't be merged because the single article would be too long and difficult to navigate; they should refer to each, as they do currently. Any NPOV issues should be fixed through editing and expansion, not deletion. Frankly, if this isn't an example of a notable topic and a well-sourced article, then I apparently don't understand the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went through the references again do not say it is Terrorism like the ref below say MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES not Terrorism.In over 141 of the references in the article US involvement has not been called Terrorism.

CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)

Actually Us involement in Colombia is seen as positive in most references. Why continued US support is crucial for Colombia's peace process BBC Has Plan Colombia really worked? @Johnpacklambert: missed above Nervegolgi (talk) 00:18, 17 November 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. Even if not counting the creator vote, there seems to be a clear consensus since the relist.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

2007 British Army order of battle

2007 British Army order of battle (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)

There were no major UK

talk) 04:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons above. Dormskirk (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with nominator. Gavbadger (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There were several major infantry regiment amalgamations in 2006 and 2007 (SCOTS, LANCS and RIFLES at least) resulting from the 2003 Defence White Paper outcomes and consequent changes. I am trying to explore with the article creator whether 2007 (or 2008) was a steady state in the British Army that might justify a 2007 (or 2008) ORBAT such as this one. The principal source appears to be archived versions of the official British Army website, which, whilst not an academic source, may be acceptable once it has been examined more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this? Please sign your comment/vote. Which 23003 Defence White Paper are you talking about? How does that justify a Stuture four years later? Archives of a British Army website do not justify the need for an orbat for 2007. Archives just show the units were present.
talk) 08:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I am referring to the 2003 Defence White Paper entitled Delivering Security in a Changing World [14], and the force reductions contained within. Some of this was modified by later MoD guidance in 2004 [15], and various changes were made to the details of the original plans over the years following the White Paper's release [16]. These changes were the basis for the creation/amalgamations of several regiments like LANCS, SCOTS and RIFLES, which occurred in 2006 and 2007. So, 2007 (or 2008) seems a logical steady state following the reductions/amalgamations, unless you are aware of major changes in 2008–2010. And you can tone your comments down. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
R LANCs was created in 2005 so that's not counted. The Rifles were created in 2007, ok. SCOTS were created in 2006. So only Rifles count and that is not much for a structure for 2007, based on defence reviews in 2003 and 2004. And then you claim, or rather I first proposed for merger [17], 2008 is also steady state, ie,
talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It is self-evident. If all the changes from the 2003 White Paper were completed by February 2007 (with the creation of RIFLES), then the British Army in March 2007 (or 2008, I'm open to moving it there because it is less ambiguous than 2007 due to RIFLES being created in early 2007) is a steady state following all of the changes originally mooted in 2003. It shows the state of the British Army once the White Paper had been fully implemented (with various modifications here and there), and therefore is encyclopaedically useful as a snapshot showing the full outcome of the 2003 White Paper. Unless you have contrary information that shows major changes to the British Army between the creation of RIFLES and the 2010 Review, I see no reason whatsoever why this article should not be kept. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are picking at straws. Unless you tell me a huge majority of the units were changed/merged/created in 2007 and not earlier or later (I am ignoring 2008 since this isn't in the first reason to delete), then it is significant. As I've previously pointed, especially on J-Man-11's talk page, there was no detailed army document regarding these changes. SDSR 2010 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62482/strategic-defence-security-review.pdf), it was announced just two/2 years later (not four, not three as your case is), that there would be a Army 2020 plan (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120817015012/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_brochure.pdf) and then it came up the next year (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20131002123834/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_Report.pdf). These plans covere the majority of units. Your argument covers only a couple of units stretched over longer periods of time, with no clear army plan or links (Army 2020 changes can be found [19] here. As I said, only the Rifles changed in 2007 and a previous article covering changes was deleted in a AfD, [20]]. No, you are just desperately picking at straws.
talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't appreciate being lectured at, so pull your head in. My views are not "desperate", they are completely logical. I've made my views clear and you are not going to change them by bludgeoning me with posts. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An additional, perhaps principal source for this article has been identified through ongoing communication with the article creator. The British Army Guide 2008-2009 (2008) by Charles Heyman and published by Pen & Sword. It specifically identifies ORBAT states of play for 2007, and is available in preview on Google Books here. Combined with the weaker but still reliable archived official British Army webpages, this provides sufficient reliable sources to support the existence of this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one desperately arguing, am not lecturing, argument still stands. Curious you think one source is a saviour of it all.
talk) 03:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I argue again for deletion, especially since I argue it is so similar to British Army Land_Forces, 2007-2015 where the result was delete. I also stand my previous arguments as per above. Using a defence review three/four years earlier and one book does not justify the need for a structure for 2007, especially since only one cited unit was changed in that year.

talk) 04:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

You've already made your point a number of times. This is becoming repetitious, and is probably discouraging to other editors who may look in on it. So can you just leave it so others can comment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hypocrisy, since you yourself are. So I'll leave it. If you reply, you are really breaking your own law.
talk) 05:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Baskut Tuncak

Baskut Tuncak (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 special rapporteur is not covered under WP:DIPLOMAT, thus I don't see how this article can pass notability guidelines. Also fails GNG. 1l2l3k (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes required as possible. Request removal of the deletion tag. Alex-h (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:15, 13 November 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

WP:ATD. There is a parallel discussion going on which might change overall policy about candidates. When that discussion is completed, this can be revisited. It'll be a logistical nightmare to re-examine every candidate article that's been deleted over the years, but that's another question. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Hiral Tipirneni

AfDs for this article:
Hiral Tipirneni (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 should be merged/redirected to

WP:NACADEMIC. Marquardtika (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your concern
that election will keep the information about the importance of that race for those who want to read about a historical election, despite the candidate lacking individual notability. Bkissin (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NPOL. Casprings (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps it won't be an issue since the election's over, but we've seen candidate supporters just restore the version right before the redirect shortly after the AfD ends, which is why I'm advocating for the delete/redirect. SportingFlyer talk 00:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can always be page-protected. XOR'easter (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if B does achieve consensus, which is not certain, it doesn't change the fact the coverage here is routine campaign coverage. For instance, the New York Times article was primarily about the election in her district, the other New York Times "article" was election results. There's no reason we can't include the information about her in the article on the election per
    WP:PRESERVE. SportingFlyer talk 12:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There has not been any consensus established that "Statement B" is the new rule going forward as of yet. As I've pointed out to you many times before, adopting statement B would make it completely impossible to ever deem any candidate in any election not-notable anymore — every candidate always gets campaign coverage, so every candidate would always pass Statement B. Wikipedia then immediately loses its value as an encyclopedia, and becomes nothing more than a worthless repository of campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 19 November 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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Buledi

Buledi (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)

Declined prod. Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources

WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 13 November 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 18:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Film Festival

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

No significant independent coverage to be found for this student-run film festival. It may be the oldest student-run film festival (there is no evidence to support this claim) but is that even a valid claim to notability? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The 2000 book The Film Festival Guide: For Filmmakers, Film Buffs, and Industry Professionals has an entry for this festival. See screenshot here. It does not seem like the San Francisco Chronicle or the Times Standard, relatively close, cover the festival, though. Maybe redirect to Arcata, California#Culture with a sentence there about the festival? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @
Humboldt State University is more appropriate, as the festival appears to be a student-run activity of that school, and offers academic credit for submitted student films. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That would work too. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:33, 13 November 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. No consensus to delete this one at all.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ocean of Tears

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

The article fails

WP:NOTNEWS as well DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article cites sufficient coverage of the fallout from its being banned at the University of Kashmir to indicate notability; coverage also includes discussion of the film's content. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several articles from newspapers, including the Hindu and Times of India, and I found mention in "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" via google books; plenty to expand the article with. Curdle (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A terrible nomination. The film has received ample coverage in mainstream Indian media; see the following articles for starters:

Therefore, the requirements of the aforementioned notability guidelines are indisputably satisfied. One can find plenty more articles out there. Kerberous (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of all references from the article as well as those presented in this AfD with the
WP:GNG
criteria
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
The Hindu Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source)
WP:NOTNEWS
Filming Reality Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2 paragraph coverage that is not enough to call significant coverage
greater kashmir Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Published in the "Curtain Raiser" section of the newspaper. 2 para
WP:NOTNEWS
Samaylive Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article published during the release of movie in 2012 and covers the documentary and its controversy
Kashmir times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article
WP:NOTNEWS
The Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Short article
WP:NOTNEWS
Tehelka ? Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY ? article that partly covers the film and partly the release controversy.
Times of India Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article that only covers the release controversy. fails
WP:NOTNEWS
Firstpost Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN 2013 article Directors Interview ( First person, Primary source) and covers the release controversy
Greater Kashmir Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Interview of the director. ( First person, Primary source)
WP:NOTNEWS
DNA Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
dailyexcelsior Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN 2012 article covers the release controversy
Total qualifying sources 1? There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Analysis of criteria for NFILMS
Criteria Result Pass/Fail
The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. not distributed and no full length reviews Red XN
The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. no non trivial article on movie Red XN
The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. not deemed notable by broad survey Red XN
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. No commercial re-release Red XN
The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. not featured Red XN
The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3] no award Red XN
The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. Not selected Red XN
The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. not taught Red XN
Inclusionary criteria
The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, No unique accomplishment Red XN
The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. No notable person Red XN
The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." not distributed successfully anywhere Red XN
Total qualifying criteria 0 There must be qualifying criteria to meet the NFILMS notability requirements
--DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Special notability guidelines, such as NFILMS, are alternatives to the basic
general notability guideline;meeting general notability through widespread in-depth coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yngvadottir I have already covered GNG in my source table. Can you point me which are those "multiple significant coverage sources" that you believe are meeting GNG here. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if I feel the GNG is met. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that films spend significant budget on promotion, but suggesting they would purposely spent money to get the production banned in various places is patently absurd. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROMO
.
In any case, we should be able to differentiate between regular
WP:NFILM criteria. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • comment I managed to find more of the book ref; if you access "Filming Reality: The Independent Documentary Movement in India" through google books, you only get the first two paragraphs on page 255; however, go through google scholar and you can see that the coverage is rather more. It extends through 256 (not viewable) and halfway through page 257. So its definately significant coverage. May take a few days to get actual scans of the book though.
There is also a short mention in "Mobilizing Conflict Testimony: A Lens of Mobility for the Study of Documentary Practices in the Kashmir Conflict" in Social sciences from 2017 (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/6/3/88/htm). Curdle (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. We will have to actually read the source for making a decision if it passes the "significance" threshold. The second link you gave is only a 1 line mention that is considered "passing mention" and far from being significant. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford The table clearly shows that NFILM criterias are not met, can you clarify your vote ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say GNG. I agree, NFILM is not met. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, You are welcome. Can you name the sources that you are referring to pass GNG. GNG required multiple sources with significant coverage. as shown in my ref table, this is lacking as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find that the non-interview (expository) portion of this article in
Times of India [26], to be, in total, indicative of a breadth of significant coverage in reliable sources. Chetsford (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Chetsford Thanks for linking the sources, please see my comments on each of your links.
So none of these sources show a clear passing of
WP:GNG. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In response:
Chetsford (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hindu [34] has only 4 sentences as part of the non interview coverage of the film. fails sigcov.
  • IMHO the controversy coverage and law & order related news, fails
    WP:NOTNEWS
    , we can agree to disagree here.
  • Chetsford can you email me the screenshots of the book, to review.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By my count it has 11 sentences that are neither direct nor indirect quotes. An eleven sentence article is about par with a précis which is fine. NOTNEWS has to do with breaking news, not news of any kind. If it did, there would be no WP articles on things like the
Syrian Civil War or Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Vis a vis the book, I'll be happy to. I should be able to scan it tomorrow and will email it. Chetsford (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
More
WP:BLUDGEON
stuff ...
  • Nope. You've repeatedly argued (
    not a forum for endless debate, it's a simple process in which people present rationales and move on. It's fine to ask a question, or point out a policy error, or whatever (some AfD !votes really don't make sense, e.g. at an ongoing one about an alleged dog breed), but an endless litany of disagreement that simply re-re-re-states the same arguments you've already made and which others are not buying simply isn't constructive; see Proof by assertion. E.g., it's already been pointed out to you that you are citing NOTNEWS wrong; it is about breaking news and the fact that WP doesn't exist for that purpose (and isn't written in news style); it has nothing to do with using news publications as sources. Finally, I have no idea what point you're trying to make in observing that other films were even more controversial. If I have a small pizza and you have a huge pizza, I still have a pizza. You don't get to personally decide what "failed to generate enough controversy"; that's what the collective input at AfD does when something's notability may hinge on controversy.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I think there is another problem with some folks who mistake a reasonable debate with bludgeoning. Both are different. If you dislike so much, your comments being replied to, why participate in the first place ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:03, 19 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bytecoin (cryptocurrency)

Bytecoin (cryptocurrency) (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)

Questionably notable cryptocurrency; the article has a single source. I tried looking for more sources and could only find coverage on cryptocurrency websites with doubtful reliability. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.ccn.com/bytecoin-original-anonymous-cryptocurrency-jumps-250-comeback/
  2. ^ https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bytecoin-price-explodes-82-following-201511175.html
  3. ^ https://cointelegraph.com/press-releases/privacy-oriented-cryptocurrency-features-on-chinese-exchange-gateio
  4. ^ https://www.ccn.com/poloniex-requires-2000-confirmations-for-bytecoin-transactions/
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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kalø Vintage Car Rally

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

No indication of notability.

WP:MILL Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 15 November 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 Ira Remsen#Legacy. Sandstein 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Remsen Award

Ira Remsen Award (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 turned up absolutely no in-depth coverage of this local award. Would have redirected to the organization, but the chapter which awards this does not have their own page. Onel5969 TT me 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep. It gets a lot of mentions. But no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 21:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If mentions in Science, Nature and the New York Times simply don't count, in your view, there are in depth articles in lesser scientific organs. As in, the articles are several pages long, and include the name of the award in the title of the article. τ℗ʍ (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with my view. Please read
WP:GNG. And if those in-depth sourcing exists, please provide links to them. Right now, the refs you are adding (and thanks for that btw) are simply mentions and/or primary sourcing. Take for example your C&EN reference. That's a journal put out by the organization giving the award. Counts zilch towards notability. You've done a smash up job on creating articles about notable chemists and other scientific folk (keep up the good work), it's just that this one doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly which of the secondary sources go in-depth about the award. And just exactly how do you arrive at the notability of the award by who receives it? That's not exactly how notability on Wikipedia works. Onel5969 TT me 01:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will just this once indulge in the frustrating practice of answering one question with another: How do you define "in depth"? The line between "passing mention" and "substantial discussion" is always ultimately a judgment call, no matter how much we might pretend or prefer otherwise. I've encountered before the headache of trying to source material about academic history, and there was more here than I expected. XOR'easter (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, it is a judgement call. And not only about length, but about where it is published. A short paragraph in The New York Times holds more weight to notability than that same paragraph in the local county paper. In this instance I'm not seeing anything more than a brief sentence in any independent source. Indeed, most of the current cites are either pr blurbs about the winner of the awards, and therefore aren't rs, or aren't from independent sources. The award exists, and I guess its an honor to the recipients, but doesn't pass
WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:26, 15 November 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

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

COMMON

COMMON (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)

Notability concerns; an extremely difficult term to search for but I haven't found references suggesting that this is the subject of independent coverage.

π, ν) 20:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
COMMON is the largest association of users of IBM midrange computers and IBM-compatible technology in the world.
π, ν) 18:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there any significant coverage from independent reliable sources? There don't appear to be any given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 01:27, 15 November 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 18:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber of Public Secrets

Chamber of Public Secrets (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)

Couldn't find any independent RS covering this, and not even passing mentions. Most, if not all, of them are just primary sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus on whether the coverage is sufficient for

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Internet Movie Firearms Database

AfDs for this article:
Internet Movie Firearms Database (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 was previously speedied and restored by a COI editor and an editor who is now blocked by WMF. Minimal RS coverage; does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 05:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The proposer offers a deletion rationale that is entirely invalid. The current article has never been speedied (it was proposed and declined), the creator has never been blocked, and has no obvious COI. There was a previous article at Imfdb which was speedied, but the creator of that has never been blocked either, and likewise has no obvious COI. To bring that up is entirely irrelevant and only serves the purpose of unfairly tainting the current effort.
Ok, the sourcing isn't great, the Field & Stream piece is substantial and in a presumably reliable source. It's a blog column, but allowable under
WP:BEFORE and provided a rationale why the keep decision then no longer applies. SpinningSpark 01:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A previous version (Internet Movie Firearm Database) was speedied in February 2011. The current article was recreated without consensus or discussion in July 2012 by Zackmann08, who has a declared COI according to the Talk page. Scalhotrod (who is now banned, for what it's worth) reinserted primarily unsourced/OR content from the previously-deleted version in December 2012, which they apparently authored according to their talk page statements. I agree that we should assess the current article on its own merits, but I stand behind my assessment that the article was created by a COI editor and a now-blocked editor as well as the fact that it was re-created without consensus to overturn the previous speedy deletion.
Consensus or discussion is not required to recreate an article deleted A7, but as it happens, there was a discussion here. The COI declaration was not made by User:Zackmann08 themself. As far as I can tell, and I've searched quite thoroughly, the user has never declared a COI. They have declared they edit IMFDB, but if editing a wiki gave one a COI and excluded one from writing its article, then we wouldn't be able to have any articles about Wikipedia, since one must be a Wikipedia editor in order to write a Wikipedia article. Perhaps User:Delicious carbuncle can explain the reason for placing the notice. SpinningSpark 08:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: My only COI is that I used to contribute to the Wiki. I haven't edited it in years. Also note that I have intentionally abstained from commenting on this AFD... I never felt the need to declare a COI. If others feel that I should I am happy to do so. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:21, 14 November 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 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coreboot/VBT

Coreboot/VBT (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 consists entirely of copy-pasted jargon and user manual content. –dlthewave ☎ 04:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headout

AfDs for this article:
Headout (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)

Coverage is exclusively trivial coverage of capital raised interspersed with PR (such as [36]), which does not meet the guidelines at

WP:ORGCRITE for significant coverage. There was also a profile in a CNN listicle [37] which I believe also does not pass muster but is worth mentioning separately because its content is of a different genre of triviality than the business press. I was not able to find any more substantial coverage in an internet search. signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 18:44, 13 November 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 Speed keep, withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) signed, Rosguill talk 14:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Menkin

AfDs for this article:
David Menkin (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)

Lots of minor roles, but no major ones means that this fails

WP:GNG either. The most significant coverage appears to be [38] (and an internet search returns some similar interviews in other Norwegian publications, where the subject is asked to speak primarily about their co-stars). Such coverage was deemed insufficient at the last AfD for this subject, but since the subject has played at least two roles since the previous AfD, rather than CSDing the recreated article, I'm bringing it here (although one role is as the lead of a not-terribly-notable cartoon, and the other is a minor role in a Norwegian TV show, and neither appear to have generated any additional coverage about the subject so I'm still leaning toward delete). signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll point out the last AFD was in 2015, and he's had more roles since then. The outcome of that AFD was debatable too. There were 2 Keeps, 1 redirect, and 3 deletes (including the nom's delete vote). JC7V (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just found another source about him here and I also found this source. JC7V (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also found another source here JC7V (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:41, 13 November 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 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Ford (athlete)

Martyn Ford (athlete) (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 notability as both actor and MMA fighter. PRehse (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:38, 13 November 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 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiloso Mexican Bistro

Chiloso Mexican Bistro (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)

Might be

WP:TOOSOON but local(ish) chain that hasn't received any outside coverage aside from hyper local sources. Fails NCORP and GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Calgary Police Service Pipe Band

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

Non-notable pipe band - performs at routine functions for the police. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:39, 13 November 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vulva Original

AfDs for this article:
Vulva Original (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

in-depth reviews which suggest it's notable. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy deletion was declined, so let's finish it off here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:11, 14 November 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Hamilton-Hill

Jessica Hamilton-Hill (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 to meet

WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Occasional small mentions. Greyjoy talk 12:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 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 Oldest people#Chronological list of the oldest known living person since 1955. Sandstein 18:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Karnebeek-Backs

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

The article teaches us that Ms Karnebeek was born, got married, worked a farm, died at 110, and was posthumously recognized as the world's oldest known living person for about a year. This last fact is her only claim to notability, therefore her mention in the list of oldest people is enough coverage in Wikipedia. Delete and redirect there. — JFG talk 12:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She, not he. And the lack of records elsewhere only points out the notable rarity of someone being that old, that early. LE (talk) 17:42, 21 November 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) Sam Sailor 19:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Block Blues

AfDs for this article:
West Block Blues (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 am taking this to AfD again due to in part of

WP:GNG asks for multiple reliable citations, yes, anything can be classed as reliable with the right citations, however this article is independent of Bengaluru FC and it's all about the supports of the football club, this is not necessary as there is plenty of space on the main club article to cover this information. Content forking is for when articles get too big, as Bengaluru FC is not that big an article this should be merge into the that article. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nothing has changed since the last AfD. Multiple additional sources were noted in the previous AfD, which need to be incorporated. The whole content fork argument is irrelevant, this is a fan group which while they support Bengaluru, are independent of the club and so should be judged on their own merits. It is in fact where supporters groups are not notable that they might be added to a club culture section in the club article if comment is needed at all. This situation is the opposite of that. Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're a supporters group, they are not an official part of the club. They're independent in the same way the players are independent of the club, or the ground. The point you need to be addressing is what has changed since the last AfD. Fenix down (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, but I don't see this topic being independent of the club, nor would it exist without the club, the are inherently linked, nothing has changed since the last AfD, article hasn't improved and the whole topic can be represented in Bengaluru FC. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK< but it was established that the group were independently notable in the last AfD, so the question remains valid, what has changed since the last AfD? Subjects can be inherently linked whilst still being independent. Furthermore
    the fact that the article has not yet been improved since the last AfD is no reason for deletion now, particularly when further useful sources were noted. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
About supporters from a club, where there is clearly enough space on the club article to write about the supporters. I am sorry, but I personally think all these keep votes are pathetic. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 15 November 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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Bob Jackson (rugby league)

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

Fails

WP:BLP mainly he played a fewer international matches but he captioned North Queensland which is unsignificant only became Victorian Rugby League Secretary later.. Sheldybett (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 14 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jeetu Nepal

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

No claim of significance, but its lacking references despite the article being short and roles apart of the weekly show Mundre Ko Comedy Club are minor anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:12, 13 November 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 18:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synereo

Synereo (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 cryptocurrency. Taking away the coin sites leaves this article on an Israeli business new site (Synereo is based in Israel) published shortly after they raised a few million.

talk) 03:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:15, 15 November 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 Peercoin#NeuCoin. Consensus not to keep, merger already done. Sandstein 18:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeuCoin

NeuCoin (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 cryptocurrency. Take away the coin sites and the best sources are TechCrunch and VentureBeat articles published shortly after NeuCoin's initial funding.

talk) 03:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to
    ISBN 978-0-231-17372-8. Retrieved 2018-11-13.

    The book notes:

    While Bitcoin is by far the leading cybercurrency, it may not represent the last word on cybercurrency design. Competitors include so-called proof-of-stake altcoins such as the Paris-based NeuCoin, launched in July 2015, which rewards minors based on holdings rather than proof-of-work. As NeuCoin's founders point out in a white paper, Bitcoin miners currently earn in aggregate about $1 million a day, which works out to about $10 per transaction. Users don't notice this, because transaction fees average only 5 cents. The remaining $9.95 comes from the new coins awarded to miners, and most of this is swapped out of Bitcoin to pay for expenses such as electricity. Mining rewards are set to decline as fewer net coins become available in the future, so total transaction fees will have to go up to compensate. The idea is that the sum value of transactions should increase enough to keep fees low.

    NeuCoin, which is focusing initially on microtransactions such as tipping for online services, gets around this potential problem in another way, by simplifying the mining process and rewarding miners with new coins based on the number they hold (effectively an interest payment). Miners are motivated to secure the system because they will be substantial holders of the currency. Some coins are also granted to new or existing users or companies that adopt the currency. The process is overseen by three nonprofit foundations located in the Isle of Man, which are ultimately controlled by NeuCoin users on the basis of one vote per coin. The idea is to distribute coins strategically to encourage widespread adoption—while the Greeks and Romans used the army, NeuCoin is going for gaming, music, and video sites, with ads such as "Go ad-free today for 10 NeuCoins. Click here to get 20 free." The money supply will therefore expand, rapidly at first and then more slowly, with a long-term target of 3 percent per year. Whether NeuCoin will succeed remains to be seen, but it and other competitors may well give the champ a run for its money.

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm okay with a redirect.
talk) 18:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:18, 15 November 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. Re-closing now that issues have been solved.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Dangerous restart

Dangerous restart (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)

Created by COI editor, does not appear to meet GNG. There is a lack of independent sources which discuss the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has a number of problems, not least being US-centric, but it is definitely a notable topic in electrical engineering. I'm having trouble finding accessible online sources, but a few snippets discussing the subject should suffice. This snippet, I think, is this paper based on the snippet page number and this index,
  • John R. Etherton, "Automated maintainability records and robot safety", Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1987, pp. 135-140, IEEE.
This book snippet shows it contains a substantial discussion of the topic,
  • Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, 2001, page 34, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
SpinningSpark 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not discussed very widely, I'll agree, but definitely a widely-used term of art. Here's another source (conference presentation) that appears to go into some details:
  • Etherto, J. R. (2002, January). Safety-related Machine Controls for Maintenance Risk Reduction. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers.
(this might be related to Spinningspark's first source though.)
Overall, I think the concept squeezes through re notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the close I undid:
Jovanmilic97, would you please not do this kind of shit? You can't same-day close an active, well-formed AfD discussion with only two participants! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Eish - sorry, senior moment there. It's not a same-day close; week old already. Not sure how I arrived at that conclusion. Apologies; See your talk page. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment @
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 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. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devcoin

AfDs for this article:
Devcoin (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 cryptocurrency. Pretty much all sources are coin news sites and/or mentions. Not much has changed since it was deleted in 2014.

talk) 02:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:17, 15 November 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.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Alessandro Capone (Linguist)

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

Despite well known and considerate amount of references, the article may not meet the

WP:GNG policy. Sheldybett (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:04, 13 November 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

United States House of Representatives elections in New York, 2018#District 2. Sandstein 18:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Liuba Grechen Shirley

Liuba Grechen Shirley (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)

Contested PROD. Fails

WP:GNG. No claim to fame other than being a candidate in an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not just reflexively keep every candidate who can merely claim to have been the first person ever to do a not inherently notable thing. To claim notability on those grounds, she would have to have received a
WP:GNG-passing volume of coverage about that achievement to establish its historic noteworthiness. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

City of Blacktown Pipe Band

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWeak delete tentatively. The subject is certainly one of Australia's top pipe bands. It has placed second or third, but never won, at grade one Australian championships multiple times, and has also competed overseas. It has a significant number of mentions in IRS over a long period of time, four decades. However, I am not sure that there is enough to meet GNG. On the other side, at the risk of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for relativity, it would seem to be far more notable than a very large number of very very minor "pop" bands that seem to have concensus as being notable, and certainly has longevity greater than the vast majority of all "pop" bands. I would welcome input from someone who has some knowledge of pipe bands and would readily support a keep if appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pipe Bands/open tasks and I'll make some improvements, one day! Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Ostrichyearning3 Changing to keep accordingly. Will you withhdraw the AfD? Aoziwe (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep will do! Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 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 for any proposed change to the status quo. It is not impermissible to have separate articles on successive sports teams that are separate legal entities, provided both meet

WP:GNG. In this case, the new team is an existing legal entity, irrespective of whether it has a roster or a record. In light of this, the absence of a clear consensus either for merging or for deletion of the article does not suffice to result in a finding of deletion. bd2412 T 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

FC Cincinnati (MLS)


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 the same team as is described at FC Cincinnati, just moving up to a new league. Changing leagues doesn't mean that this is a separate team, even if they had to change legal status.

Some key points:

  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team changes leagues.
  • In all other sports leagues besides MLS, we do not create a new article when a team legally shuts down and a new legal entity is formed; e.g. Parma Calcio 1913 (shut down and reformed 4 times). We also don't do this for any other type of company outside the realm of sports; e.g. Google (Google Inc shut down 2017 and replaced with Google LLC); Valve Corporation (Valve L.L.C. until 2003), etc.
  • Most
    reliable sources (both primary and reliable) refer to this as "FC Cincinnati moving up to MLS", not "FC Cincinnati shutting down and a new club forming in MLS". Examples: MLSSoccer.com, Cincinnati.com
    )
  • There is a discussion at Talk:FC Cincinnati#Splitting article? where the majority of participants oppose splitting the articles.

–IagoQnsi (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A MLS expansion franchise is a completely new team. This team has a different name (Fussball Club Cincinnati vs Futbol Club Cincinnati) and recently announced the branding for the new team, and the official announcement specifically says "the expansion team, which will continue as FC Cincinnati when it joins MLS...," which is not a contradictory statement since it's a new team. We have precedent as well - all other MLS teams which kept their basic branding from a minor league team have distinct splits due to the way American franchises work. The nominator of the AfD was firmly against this in other merge requests (for Orlando and Minnesota), but failed to gain consensus. Other American sports teams (San Diego Padres, Vancouver Canucks, Los Angeles Angels) split their articles between minor and major leagues as well, and this was not a promotion. Finally, two of the votes per consensus on the talk page were "no split, for now" - but now the team has branding, it is no longer
    WP:TOOSOON. It's a valid split for a new franchise. SportingFlyer talk 00:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The brand can continue. MLS precedent includes the Seattle Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, Portland Timbers, Montréal Impact, Orlando City FC and Minnesota United, and for Seattle, Montréal and Portland at least, whether these the MLS teams were new teams has never even been questioned. No USL players had contracts for the MLS team, whereas a "continuing" team would be expected to have had players on multi-year deals. [40] Sassano said loaning players down to USL from MLS required a lot of paperwork. He declined to comment on the combined salary cap hit of the two players for FC Cincinnati's 2019 MLS season. How an a team loan itself a player, if they are the same team? SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:RS. The statement from Sassano about loans is clearly about the paperwork behind moving a player between two legal entities. As I've stated in my initial post, we do not typically consider a team/company to be a new team/company just because they form a new legal entity. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Excellent points. MLS holds all of the contracts for the players of the MLS franchise while the USL team holds the contracts for their players. I didn't realize that Parma Calcio 1913 was an MLS franchisee. I can point to all sorts of other companies and sports leagues trying to support things that don't apply to MLS, but it wouldn't help. MLS is the company and each "team" is a franchisee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • This was nominated minutes after I created it, with the intent on proposing a move after the article was ready to go with the new name, logo, et cetera. Also, why would this article be different than our precedent with the six other teams which "moved up"? SportingFlyer talk 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Let's wait until there's enough distinct MLS-only content to spin off into its own article. The two operations are very much merged together at the moment and whatever the USL club had, the MLS club will have for a few months at least. SounderBruce 04:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There should only be one wikipedia related to this franchise. They started in 2015 and made the transition to the MLS. Why would you need 2? That is just super confusing and pointless. The argument of it being a new team is a long shot. I still go to the same website and still pay the same vendor for my season tickets. The history of the club needs to be maintained in the same article. As they are keeping the USL seasons on thier own website as well. Twood06 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer:
meatpuppets, which is why I'm posting this explanation. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Smartyllama Why did the Impact keep the same article for USL and NASL but yet get a new page for MLS? Twood06 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Because those were the same franchise and the MLS club was a new franchise with the same name. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: Same analogy: If the Columbus Clippers (AAA baseball) owners applied for a MLB franchise and were successful, and at their press conference announced the MLB team would be called the Columbus Clippers, that team would have a new article under American sports precedent (for instance, see San Diego Padres). In 2009, the Portland MLS article was initially created as (I'm paraphrasing) "Portland MLS Expansion Team (2011)" until it became clear they were the Timbers, even though the Timbers name was announced at the expansion team launch. SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Actually just like MLS, NASL and USL teams are purchased franchises. Twood06 (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Twood06: The Impact broke away from the USL in 2009 to join the NASL, they did not purchase a NASL franchise. It's a whole jumbled mess of minor league U.S. soccer history. It's similar to independent baseball - the Winnipeg Goldeyes have switched leagues a couple times, but it was the same team, whereas this is a new MLS franchise. SportingFlyer talk 15:27, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I don't know about the NASL in 2009, but I know that USL had a $5 million expansion fee for new franchises in 2017 when Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven joined (source). No one seems to be arguing that those USL teams are not a continuation of the respective NASL teams, despite the new franchise purchase. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: Paying the expansion fee isn't the indicator of a new team. USL teams have the right to exit the league after a certain number of years, whereas my understanding is you couldn't move a MLS team to a new league because of the single entity structure. [41] As an aside to this thread you should also read up on the 2009-2010 soccer split if you can, it's rather interesting, and may help explain how the Cascadian teams weren't considered to have "moved up" a decade ago. SportingFlyer talk 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NASL did not provide franchises at all. The league was created by the owners of several USL teams (Montreal and Vancouver were founding members even though the latter did not ever play in the league). One of the goals was to give local teams full control of their own operations and for the league to deal with scheduling and the like. It was completely different than the way MLS was run. No clue how USL was run, but the reason that the alternate league was created was to avoid the meddling of the league at the team level, so I can't see it as having a single-owner model the way MLS does. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there's been a decade of consensus this is the proper way to do things, the burden is actually on your side: why should we treat this article differently from the other American sports articles? SportingFlyer talk 15:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My key points on the matter would be:
  • All other soccer leagues in the world do things this way. Just because American soccer doesn't have pro/rel doesn't mean we should handle this differently. What's more, even when a team shuts down and re-forms in other countries, we don't create a new article (e.g. Parma Calcio 1913). The fans consider all the iterations of Parma to be one continuous club, and thus so does Wikipedia. Fans seem to consider FC Cincinnati MLS to be a continuation of FC Cincinnati USL, so we should consider them to be one singular topic.
  • I don't think the precedent for American teams is "always create a new article when a team changes leagues", but rather, the precedent is "create a new article when reliable sources say it's a new team". I haven't seen any reliable sources that talk about Los Angeles Angels (PCL) or San Diego Padres (PCL) as being the same team as their MLB counterparts. The same cannot be said of MLS teams, or at least FC Cincinnati, where most sources consider the new team to simply be a continuation of the old team.
  • Side note: I think part of the reason that sources choose to do this is because there seems to be a much larger gap between MLB and PCL/MiLB than there is between MLS and USL. MLB average attendance is four times that of PCL (whereas MLS and USL attendance actually overlap -- there are several USL teams outperforming several MLS teams -- and the overall averages are much closer). This is more subjective, but I think people may perceive the skill gap between MLB and MiLB to be much greater than between MLS and USL. In general, I think the news media is treating MLS/USL as soccer leagues more than American leagues, if that makes sense. (This side note is just my opinion/speculation on why reliable sources do what they do -- the point is, we should do what the reliable sources do.)
  • The first teams to climb up to MLS had much longer histories in lower divisions, so there was more of a need to split the articles per
    WP:TOOLONG
    . For example, there was definitely a need to have Seattle's 1994–2008 history in a separate article. I would argue that we should have articles "History of Seattle Sounders (1994–2008)" and "History of Seattle Sounders (2008–present)", and the History section in "Seattle Sounders" should provide a high-level summary spanning from 1994 to present. However, this is a semantic difference that I don't think is as big of a deal, so I can understand why no one has brought this argument before (pick your battles, as they say). When we apply this precedent to the newer teams with much shorter lower-division tenures, however, it becomes a lot more silly.
–IagoQnsi (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS. If reliable source reported that the fans considered and in legal sense they are the same club, then they are the same club. But in this case, it is pretty much "the editorial judgement" on split or merge articles even they are closely related. It is common for company that break down to smaller article after major rebrand and/or change in the scope of their business. So, it rather whatever or not follow other MLS team to have their own sub-article, or just merge together. Matthew hk (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Matthew hk: Sorry, saying "fans consider it the same team" was a poor choice of words. It's not just fans who consider the teams to be the same; it's the general consensus among all sources reporting on the matter:
The consensus among the reliable sources of all sorts seems to be that the MLS franchise is a continuation of the same team. –IagoQnsi (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: The Parma comparison is not a false equivalance—Parma formed entirely new legal entities too. In 1968, a court ordered the liquidation of the club, and then in 1970, a different club (Associazione Calcio Parmense) bought the license to the defunct club's name. In April 2004, Parma AC SpA was declared insolvent, and a new club was established as Parma Football Club SpA in June 2004. In March 2015, Parma Football Club SpA declared bankruptcy, and in July 2015, S.S.D. Parma Calcio 1913 S.r.l. was formed. –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You misunderstood the point. The point is that the difference between "franchises" and "clubs" is important. The United States does not use a club based system, and franchises that move do not inherit the history of the previous franchises. The same is not true for clubs (e.g. Rangers F.C.). That's why you have that ambiguity and is one of the reasons that the MLS teams that began as lower tier teams have different articles. You see the same thing for other leagues, or at least have an inconsistency e.g. the Denver Nuggets (like I mentioned before). Fans and ownership may claim that they are the same, but that does not make it so. Take a look at the Steaua debate as a good example of this issue and why it's different. Again, I think this is a really silly thing to get hung up on. I think the Orlando City SC article is a good example of how to do it right and I don't see a compelling reason for FC Cincinnati to be an exception. Jay eyem (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jay eyem: We do use a franchise system, but the fact is that reliable sources seem to be treating FC Cincinnati more like a club than a franchise (it is called "FC", after all). Not to mention: what about other franchises? When Tampa Bay Rowdies, North Carolina FC, and Indy Eleven left the NASL in 2017 and 2018, they paid expansion fees to create new USL franchises, and yet, no one is pushing for those articles to be split. It seems to me that it's less important whether or not a new franchise was formed, and more important whether or not reliable sources consider this franchise to be a continuation of the previous one. –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL on assuming every franchise would be suffered from relocation, renaming and the identity crisis. Matthew hk (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The comparison is an American sports comparison, which is applicable to this article - see the Houston/San Jose relocation. The NBA officially recognizes Charlotte Hornets/Bobcats as one franchise and New Orleans Hornets/Pelicans as one franchise, but until 2013 it was Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets and Charlotte Bobcats. History can in fact be "transferred" between franchises. But we're getting into the weeds here, might have to hatnote this :) SportingFlyer talk 11:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Then the scope of the article would be "X is a franchise in MLS, which used the name of soccer club Y original founded in year Z." i don't mind to split if defining the scope of the article on the franchise /spot in MLS. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @
Potenza S.C. and Potenza Calcio
are clearly two clubs, and i can't dig out the citation about the true connection except they played on the same stadium, but it-wiki group it and en-wiki did not. To sum up, in en-wiki, Italian clubs and its true phoenix club are grouped in one article, but the original and phoenix club can be very distinctive on assets sense.
Back to US system. franchise is a fancy word which is not well appeared in
WP:TOOLONG (may be?), or consistency with other MLS team article. Matthew hk (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) Only if you argue on US system, is the spots in certain sports league are fixed. Teams can be bought and relocated (and renamed), making the article is about the spot not the club. For example Utah Jazz still kept the history as New Orleans Jazz, also New York Red Bulls still kept the history of MetroStars. Matthew hk (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reliable sources love pointing out that MLS teams are franchises, not clubs. I personally find the distinction rather silly, but we can't go by what I think or what you think, we have to go with what reliable sources say. Smartyllama (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A post related to this article split was recently posted to /r/FCCincinnati, the Reddit community for fans of the team. One user named TheAmplifier posted a comment that I'd like to share: "From a user's perspective, two different articles makes no sense. If I go to FC Cincinnati I should see everything regarding the team and it's history." This seems to be a shared sentiment there, as the comment is currently sitting at 11 upvotes. Per
    WP:ASTONISH
    , we should not do things that would surprise/confuse a reader. It seems to me, and to these Reddit users, that having two separate articles would be surprising/confusing to many readers.
Disclaimer: I am an active user in /r/FCCincinnati. However, I did not make the original post, and all of my comments in the thread have included a warning that people should not join this AfD discussion if they are not already active Wikipedians. –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, favoring deletion I agree with following both the fanbase and general media perception that the "FC Cincinnati team", as a whole, is continuing on, uninterrupted, just in a new league. (And the reddit thread cited above is a good barometer of the fanbase.) While there may be contractual reasons why there is a different legal entity and certain player contracts are not continuing, those are mere technicalities. The colors are the same; the management is the same; the offices and stadium are the same; the popular name, web presence, and social media accounts are all the same. Season ticket holders for 2018 were given the same priority for 2019. From a popular, non-lawyer's perspective, the 2019 FC Cincinnati is the same entity and entitled to the same feelings as the 2018 entity. That there is a precedent here for splitting other teams is an interesting footnote, but it would cause less confusion for the average user looking for FC Cincinnati information here if that precedent were abandoned. It should be abandoned. Liffer (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jesus have we really stooped to using a reddit thread as a source? This will literally make zero difference once the team actually begins playing in MLS and this article is moved to FC Cincinnati. You don't see Orlando City or Minnesota United or Seattles Sounders fans etc. complaining about this. Jay eyem (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt the same about the Timbers article ten years ago, but I was wrong. The leap to MLS was huge, and you've seen this play out with FC Cincinnati's new name change and brand. I've added the notavote template. SportingFlyer talk 23:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I'm not familiar enough with the Portland Timbers to say if that was the right call or not. Readers are less likely to be looking for info on the pre-MLS days as time goes on, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely separated. A big point I'd like to make is that the transition will most likely be much less drastic for FC Cincinnati than for most previous expansion teams. The FO has been running MLS-level marketing campaigns and drawing MLS-level crowds. The local news followed the team very closely and their coverage felt more comparable to the attention they give to the Reds and Bengals (the other major league teams in town) than to their coverage of the Cyclones or UC/Xavier college sports. This is anecdotal, but to those of us in town, moving up to MLS just feels like a logical step forward, not a big leap. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:TOOSOON? They even have three players on their roster, and most other MLS expansion teams have received articles as soon as they've been announced. SportingFlyer talk 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I know other bad stuff exists in Wikipedia. This is practically a certainty considering how big the English Wikipedia already is and how bigger it is getting by the day. Plus, I do not believe we can fix everything. This is why the community has accepted (see
WP:OSE) that one article that should not have been created in the first place cannot be used as an justification to have another, similar article in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Mitolo

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

Unreferenced

WP:BLP – I thought these were all supposed to have been weeded out? Anyway, I can't find one single reliable source for this person; he is apparently not the Giorgio Mitolo who was general manager of SIAT and was prosecuted by the Guardia di Finanza for fraud and conspiracy in 1981. Please note: the article was longer before I removed some unsourced personal information and a good quantity of other unreferenced stuff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Rodriguez (Video game player)

Adrian Rodriguez (Video game player) (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)

reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles by making grandiose claims about themselves, they get Wikipedia articles by receiving coverage about them in real media. You know, the kind with editorial standards and fact-checking. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_November_13&oldid=1142615429"