Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 6 May 8 May >

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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nib Crouch

Nib Crouch (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 musician. Fails

WP:MUSICBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Well, not very speedily.

WP:SK#1, no rationale for deletion. This is without prejudice to an actual AfD at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Omise (Company)

Omise (Company) (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 was recently created by User:Limamurat and immediately draftified by User:Jake Brockman. I have reverted the draftification in order for it to be discussed here at AfD, where I hope it will see wider input. I am not arguing for its deletion.

This article should be at Omise, but the title's salted due to it being twice G11ed in 2017. I don't think the current version is blatantly promotional, and Omise has over the past few years become a major online payment operator in the region. While the references need pruning to remove non-independent PR pieces, some of them appear to be third-party reporting that cover the subject in an in-depth manner. Paul_012 (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP
.
On a more general note, articles about Omise, Omise (Company) and OmiseGO have a bit of a colourful history with a variety of editors - some of whom made few other edits, so reviewers will be aware and exercise caution. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdraw per

(non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael M. Thackeray

Michael M. Thackeray (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)

Certainly doesn't meet

WP:UPE John from Idegon (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article looks very much like UPE. I would revert it back to this version, which incidentally is what made me think he's notable. Per scopus, he has an h-index of 77, and a total of 24417 citations. 6 of his papers on lithium ion batteries have been cited over 1000 times each, which I would say is a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" (NPROF C1). Natureium (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton Elliott

Carleton Elliott (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)

Although there is an article about him in the Canadian Encyclopedia, I have been unable find other reliable sources to support the notability of this music educator, his choir or his compositions. Perhaps other editors will have more success; usually inclusion in the CE means the person is fairly well-known. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Encyclopedia is a
WP:TERTIARY indicates that tertiary sources should be used mainly to provide context when writing an article based on many other sources. Although I am happy to find a reason to keep this article, I think "Speedy keep" is too strong; it depends on consensus that the CE is similar to the Dictionary of National Biography, and ignores the sentence in the guideline which says "meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included".—Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for finding the Canadian Music Teacher obituary. I saw the Globe and Mail item, but it appears to be a family-placed obituary, and so isn't an independent source. I did check for alternate spellings of "Carleton"; Checking for "Elliot" brought up a book reference with one sentence about him.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPROF. Family-written obituary is not an independent source and organizational newsletter obit fails
    WP:AUD. Notability is not demonstrated or even asserted ("Mount Allison Local Centre Examinations in Music supervisor", really?). Reywas92Talk 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 20:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the Canadian music teacher is NOT "one's own organization's internal newsletter"; it is the journal of the Canadian Federation of Music Teachers' Associations,
    ISSN 0319-6356. It is not at all surprising that a piano teacher should have encountered another piano teacher in the course of their education and career - but the wording makes clear that the writer did not know the subject well. He was not a friend; he refers to two occasions on which he met him, one when he was a child and the subject examined him. You seem to be suggesting that no one who shared his profession and who ever met the man could write independently about him, which is ridiculous. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I have been unable find other reliable sources to support the notability of this music educator, his choir or his compositions. is a reason to delete if it turns out to be true (as
    barely notable is still notable. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. Inclusion in
    newspapers.com as well, and the only new thing I was able to find was an indication that his wife once performed one of his compositions at a piano recital, which is not a notability claim. So literally all we've got otherwise is his paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds, a single-page glancing namecheck of his existence in a book and the internal newsletter of a directly-affiliated organization, which are not notability-assisting sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually locate more solid sources than anybody here has been able to, but if The Canadian Encyclopedia is all we can find then that's not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I believe that both the
    Canadian Encyclopedia article states, "They made index cards for every fact in the encyclopedia, signed off by the researcher, utilized three sources, and had every article read by three outside readers." We may not have access to the sources used for the entry in the Canadian Encyclopedia, but we can be certain that they exist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We have to have access to sources before they count as proof of notability, not just assume the existence or quality of sources. There's no evidence, for instance, that the Canadian Encyclopedia's research on Carleton Elliott didn't consist primarily of interviewing his own family to collect otherwise unpublished details — if they had based it on published sources that would actually count as evidence of notability for our purposes, such as real newspaper or magazine articles, then its references section would have cited them. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree per above and
    WP:NEXIST
    !
What multiple sources? We still only have one source that counts as a
reliable or notability-supporting source at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2019 (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. Tone 20:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid Afridi

Tawhid Afridi (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 criteria of

WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of him in reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - "User:Sajidulislampathan" is the creator of this article. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khoren Papoyan

Khoren Papoyan (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 states that he did not compete at the Olympics, therefore failing

WP:NOLY. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hollingsworth

Dan Hollingsworth (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:NPOL. Of the articles 11 sources: 6 are election results, one is his voter registration, two are from the town website, One is a private profile, and one is someone else's obtiuary. GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:17, 7 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EarthKry

EarthKry (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 satisfy

WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taking a look at the sources provided, nearly all of them consist of simple album reviews, general information, or trivial coverage about tour dates and live performances - nothing about the band itself or any significant impact that they (or any of their music) has had on culture, society, music, or history that's notable. I also couldn't locate any sources in my search that are reliable, provide primary coverage about the band's impact and notability, nor validate that any of their music has hit any national top records, charts, lists, etc or that they're recognized or received any awards from any major label, publisher, notable organization, or competition. This article subject fails
    WP:GNG. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information 78.26, it seems that the contest only took place in 2015 and 2016, so it's unlikely to be notable. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richard3120, I'm not at all surprised. I'm much more impressed that they have toured both the United States and Australia, and the potential National coverage in Jamaica. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last minute relist to see if 78.26's sources satisfy GNG criteria
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the Article is not notable itself. It's a reggae band and I think the article also could merge with the main article in Wikipedia. But I'm agree with deleting the article, anyway.Forest90 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing Independence Foundation

Choosing Independence Foundation (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)

Apparently non-notable, no hits on GBooks, no hits on GNews, sources in the page do not begin to satisfy

WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robot certificate authority

Robot certificate authority (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)

Entire article is original research; there is no term "Robot certificate authority" Anton.bersh (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: If Robot certificate authority is deleted, Robot CA should also be deleted, because it is just a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 04:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some searching, the article was written by James Howard[1] going by the name Howardjp in 2005, composed entirely of original research (no sources). I believe that was an edit in good faith, yet Wikipedia should not host unverifiable content. Since then there were very few edits which did not update article in any major way and did not add sources. Furthermore, the focus of the article is not clear and there is no term "robot CA", since most CAs heavily rely on rely on automation and most certificates are Domain-validated and would fall under this article's definition of "robot CA". Please note that terms Domain-validated certificate, Extended Validation Certificate were introduced about the same time or even after 2005, when this article was created; likely their introduction and adoption removed the need for term "robot CA".

Original source of the article by James Howard is lost to time (because is no longer accurate or relevant), but can be seen in archives[2]. Wikipedia article almost entirely consists of paragraphs copied from these posts.

[1] Based on the article talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robot_certificate_authority [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20051223061258/http://jameshoward.us/Robot_Certificate_Authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anton.bersh (talk • contribs) 04:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 7 May 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wermerskirchen

Brian Wermerskirchen (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 candidate who never held office, fails

WP:NPOL and doesn't meet GNG either. Praxidicae (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I wouldn't even call that a claim. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.  Not notable.  

Kablammo (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (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. Speedy deletion as created by a block-evading editor, with no substantial contributions from anyone else. I have little doubt that the discussion would have ended in deletion anyway, but we may as well save wasting editors' time.

talk) 12:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gulshan Kumar Bajwa

Gulshan Kumar Bajwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Note: I am striking comments by three checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of a blocked editor who has previously edited to promote Gulshan Kumar Bajwa.
    talk) 12:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC) [reply
    ]

Not clear how he passes

WP:GNG and no independent coverage Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R&P Electronic Media

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

Unsourced since creation in February 2015. I could find nothing about either this company or its parent RPL Interactive Group (mentioned in the last paragraph). Fails

WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2019 (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serafima Vakulenko

Serafima Vakulenko (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)

Sadly one of the countless articles that rely on a defunct directory. No Google results show up. And no, forums are inapplicable. Trillfendi (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The actual New York magazine covered her in their 2008 Spring Supplement on fashion. That source verifies that she "walked her first runway at Giorgio Armani's spring 2007 Privé", that she was "exclusive for Prada in Milan for fall 2007", and that she walked in spring 2008 shows for "Marc Jacobs, Yigal Azrouël, Thakoon, Yves Saint Laurent, Jil Sander (above), and the season's biggest, Lanvin". Of course, one might disagree that those productions meet the standard of
    talk) 18:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
None of articles New York Magazine mentioned her in were explicitly about her so it just wasn’t worth mentioning as they don’t give any substantial contribution to notability. Including this one. One sentence amongst a group of 9 other models. Or this one which just list her. Trillfendi (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. For better or worse,
talk) 19:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't (personally) file models under entertainers as with musicians or actors. Just verifying a job only makes it a resume. Walking a show can be significant if they opened it or were an exclusive in it, or if they were noticed for walking in a particularly high number of shows, but other than that it doesn't stand out among the 30 or 40 other girls who did the same thing, walk down a runway. Some fashion brands carry much more of a level of prestige than others. Trillfendi (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ontological distinction, just a matter of which guidelines might apply. So, if walking a show can be significant, is this subject's activity significant? For example, her verifiable Prada exclusive?
talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, a Prada exclusive is seen in the industry as the holy grail because of their track record of long term successful career endorsement (look at Gemma Ward, Daria Werbowy, Sasha Pivovarova, Julia Nobis; more recently Anok Yai comes to mind but she’s still a newbie) but of course that doesn’t always happen. I think of Willy Wonka, 5 got golden tickets but you see how that turned out, right? From what I see in the article, I don’t see much of anything. Judging by this article she only worked for two seasons and only maybe 2 or 3 brands stick out among others to be on par with a brand like Prada. (Regrettably, Christian Lacroix went bankrupt years ago). Trillfendi (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So her Prada exclusive is one "significant role" in a notable "other production".
talk) 22:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I hate to use the word mediocre but that’s a “it’s not much... but it’s something” scenario. It’s neither here nor there. In my opinion it’s not enough though. Either she retired early or the industry’s notorious turnover rate got to her first. Trillfendi (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2019 (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 per

WP:SNOW. A look at the arguments and the coverage, which seems to be a sole Variety article, shows that this does not yet meet notability guidelines for film. Stretching this out for the full week is unlikely to bring about a different result, so I'm closing this early. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Unhinged (film 2019)

Unhinged (film 2019) (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)

another example of pushing an unmade film. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:51, 7 May 2019 (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) MrClog (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Cheetah Security Browser

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

Largely referenced to self-published stuff; I can't see why this id notable TheLongTone (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This browser (猎豹浏览器 or 猎豹安全浏览器 in Chinese) was found to do telephone tapping, steal personal data [2][3] and was accused of filtering advertisement by a video website Youku in China[4]. It has some bad fame in the Press. --94rain Talk 08:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.everybodywiki.com/Gulshan_Kumar_Bajwa
  2. ^ "直击 - 消保委通报猎豹自动开隐私权限 猎豹：立即整改". 新浪科技 - 新浪网 (in Chinese). November 28, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
  3. ^ "猎豹浏览器能监听外拨电话？沪消保委：应用评测显示个人信息遭泄露". 新民网 (in Chinese). November 28, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
  4. ^ "猎豹浏览器过滤优酷广告案终审判决：前者被罚30万元". IT - 人民网 (in Chinese). September 23, 2014. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
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 List of programs broadcast by DTour#F–J. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Taste, No Money

Great Taste, No Money (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)

Completely

primary source verification that it existed and glancing namechecks of its existence in its network's upfronts announcements, with no evidence of any coverage specifically about it. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (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. Tone 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Sharma

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

Fails

☎ 11:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
☎ 12:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 7 May 2019 (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.

WP:SNOW, overwhelming consensus that the nomination (later withdrawn) was completely without merit. postdlf (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of giant squid specimens and sightings (21st century)

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

Not an important article, only one contributor. 2simple (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — 2simple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ISBN 0-679-40639-5
    .
  2. Ellis, R. (1998). Authenticated Giant Squid Sightings and Strandings. [pp. 257–265] In:
    ISBN 1-55821-689-8
    .
  3. Sweeney, M.J. & C.F.E. Roper (2001). Records of Architeuthis Specimens from Published Reports. National Museum of Natural History. 132 pp.
mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: No, not all of them. --hueman1 (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE. You can help by improving the article not by deleting them. All barangays are notable as people actually live there!-RioHondo (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayapa

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palao, Canlubang

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MCDC, Canlubang

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manphil

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season

1949–50 Colchester United F.C. season (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 fails

WP:GNG, there are not enough multiple independent sources. Govvy (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NSEASONS. Lots of detail from fan sites, but nothing of note and no significant coverage from independent sites. If sources are found please ping me so I can re-consider. GiantSnowman 10:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This season article is part of series of articles on the club's seasons. The majority pass NSEASONS. If only seasons in professional leagues count, then we will end up with gaps for when they dropped out of the football league. I think it better that the whole series gets evaluated for notability. Otherwise, what do we do with articles like 1883–84 Newton Heath LYR F.C. season?   Jts1882 | talk  14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882: that's a silly suggestion. Imagine a club get promoted to the Football League for one season, and then go back into non-league obscurity. Are you saying they deserve an article on every single season? No. In this case, con sider redirecting the season articles to relevant prose sections on History of Colchester United F.C.. GiantSnowman 09:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said again. Obviously in your example you wouldn't assess a club record to justify a series of season articles based on one season in the top league. But ask it the other way, if you had a club who had a century of seasons in top leagues and they spent one season outside the top leagues, would you omit that season? What about Rangers a few seasons ago? The lower leagues in Scotland aren't fully professional. If each season stands alone, there are a lot of season articles for top clubs that need deleting, starting with the Man Utd ones.   Jts1882 | talk  09:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it meets
WP:NSEASON doesn't really say much other than season articles can be written for clubs in top leagues and should use prose. It doesn't say being in the top leagues is absolutely necessary and implies that the general notability requirement is what is important, i.e. playing in top leagues establishes notability. If playing in top leagues establishes notability, then a season where a club gains entry to that top league must also be notable.   Jts1882 | talk  08:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Incidentally, clubs from smaller towns like Colchester will mainly get covered in local press, which makes it hard to find digital versions or even libary archives these days. However, Colchester United was mentioned several times in The Times during that season because of notably results in the FA Cup (e.g. here) and announcing their election to the football league (here).   Jts1882 | talk  08:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With The Times paywalling their archives - gosh, £104 a year just to see historic articles despite my long-standing account - perhaps what would help is adding some of these references to the article, maybe with some quotes if the headline isn't particularly descriptive. It does though look like we are at improve not delete though. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Edit - oh, I see you added one! Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Colchester played in a regional 4th tier league which is enough to doom the article. Consensus has it that non-league season articles are not notable. The coverage of their election to the league and cup win is routine and still fails GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (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 Canlubang. T. Canens (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrio Canlubang

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ceris I & II

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? Where is the in-depth coverage of its historic, social, economic, or architectural importance? --Pontificalibus 05:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Balagbag Araw

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

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-2

AfDs for this article:
Asia-2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:24, 7 May 2019 (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. Delete arguments are more detailed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-1

Asia-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. hueman1 (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (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 10:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

41st Avenue (Vancouver)

41st Avenue (Vancouver) (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. The subject of the article is a fairly unremarkable local street that runs through a suburban area of Vancouver. Has very few non-routine mentions in Vancouver news sources, let alone anything non-local, and the information in the article is already present in other articles, or could be contained in neighborhood entries. SounderBruce 06:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 06:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2019 (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 10:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link Access Procedures, D channel

AfDs for this article:
Link Access Procedures, D channel (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)

Ages ago (2005) the old AfD got two comments, a merge and a 'keep, it will grow'. Well, 15 years have passed, this stub hasn't grown and is still referenced to primary sources, failing

WP:NSOFT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Tony Sidaway to my best understanding you made the user comment on the prior AfD (or equiv) that appears to me to be scoffed in the current nomination. Any comments? Ben-w is also welcome but I am concerned with the Dubs redirects. I'd confess ISBN's 978-0412497308, 9780126914122 and maybe 9783642846632 have useful refs for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 2019-05-08T09:54:53 (UTC)
    • Do not forget the whole of chapter 14 § 7 in Roger Freeman's Telecommunication System Engineering, or chapter 6 § 1 of Kessler annd Southwick's ISDN: Concepts, Facilities, and Services. Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: *Keep: We're finding references. I'd also note LAPDm can merge in here. .. this needs to be primary though. I think we're a bit swamped at AfD/PROD currently though and good work is really difficult. Its not healthly and the miscreants will be the ultimate winners ... its got to be easier on the dark side.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I probably got this confused with LPAD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2019 (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 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Exeter killings

2019 Exeter killings (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)

We are

lasting impact that would make them truly notable and not just "newsworthy right this second". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of lasting notability. signed, Rosguill talk 06:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Three killings committed, in a short space of time, apparently by the same person, in a fairly small city which does not have a high rate of violent crime. The media coverage hasn't been very extensive due to the victims having been men & the suspect being arrested soon after the killings. Jim Michael (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
media coverage hasn't been very extensive is a strong argument for deleting the article, not keeping it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest in peace to the victims, but delete as non-notable. I fail to see how the victims being men has anything to do with the coverage, and even if it did matter that doesn't change the low level of coverage. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The media coverage was much lower due to the victims having being men because the media & society usually doesn't care much about men, unless they're famous. Had the victims been women, the media coverage would have been much greater. You must have noticed that murders, missing person cases etc. typically receive far more media coverage if the subjects are female; far less if they're male. If this case is regarded as non-notable because the media coverage wasn't extensive enough, and the reason for that was that the victims were male, that's saying that the killings lack notability due to the victims having been men. Jim Michael (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on that account, but be that as it may notability is based (in large part) on media coverage, which may not be the fairest. It's rather unfortunate that these murders might not have received as much coverage as they could have due to the victims' sex, but that's ultimately life and it is not Wikipedia's job to modify our notability guidelines to
right great wrongs in the world. It's been more than a week (the guideline proposed by WP:NOTANTINEWS) since the murders and still nothing has surfaced, so this article should still be deleted. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 16:32, 8 May 2019 (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 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Londinium Pedo

Londinium Pedo (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 was deleted under

Iridescent 05:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:42, 7 May 2019 (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

(non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ride & Swerve (song)

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

Per

WP:NALBUM. Info on page is already covered on the artists BLP. Insignificant 3rd party coverage for it's own wp page. Comatmebro (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 7 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zinga (film 2019)

Zinga (film 2019) (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)

Future film, not yet notable and currently also at MFD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zinga (2019 film) Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no coverage of it. UCS doesn't apply, so I suggest you stop citing random guidelines as you've been doing elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
here is the coverage of The Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/jaishankar-chigurulas-zinga-will-bring-a-giant-alien-to-the-telugu-screens/articleshow/68991163.cms
hope you will get the details about the film including synopses and posters. Praxidicae you wan to observe the articles clearly, including each and every reference, before adding Deletion tags. authors spent lot of time to create an article. blindly adding the Deletion tags = to wasting the time of Administrators = miss using your rights. i was created this Article in
using common sense, do it what you want. i respect Administrators decision.Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sudhakar naidu 118, you're just citing the same single Times of India article over and over. Do you have other news articles to show this film is notable? Not blogs or movie databases. Otherwise this should be thrown back to draft or deleted and not to be considered until it is actually released in the theater with proper critic reviews, box office, and other reception information. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sudhakar naidu 118, Bookmyshow is a random film database, Filmyhut, Newsjizz, and Movie Manthra are questionable as RS. Can you find some other notable news agencies to provide information on the film? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UCS.Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NFF "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." and "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced" There's nothing to write about for the production of this film. I suggested going back to draft because it could then be developed there as you said, like a plant, until it's ready to bloom. That's what the draftspace is for. But that didn't happen, so here we are. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:UCS, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NFF notability for upcoming films. I've already shown you the phrases that apply to questioning the notability for this article. I have no idea how the seed became a planet. That defies common sense. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NFF says normal films are notable when the complete the production. zinga was already completed the production stage. so NFF is dos not apply for this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk • contribs
)
WP:JUSTAPOLICY "Keep because we should ignore all rules!" . Also just because you added the article to Wikiproject India or Wikiproject Film doesn't mean it's notable. Those Wikiprojects have already been notified above about the deletion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • information Administrator note I've history merged the draft into the article since it was a copy and paste move and closed the MFD. This was the last revision of the draft, and this is the difference between the article at the time this discussion started and the draft. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Zinga (2019 film) to director and salt. None of the director's other films have articles and there isn't really anything special about this one at this stage. Tendentious editing/subversion without improvement. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Actually, a very cursory look at the article shows a clear delete, which is against the wishes of the canvassing user, so I feel comfortable making the !vote.
    WP:GNG and no prejudice on recreation if the film becomes notable later. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
yes i was just asked for review this page. need help from administrators i spent lot of time to create this article with few notable references including the The Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/jaishankar-chigurulas-zinga-will-bring-a-giant-alien-to-the-telugu-screens/articleshow/68991163.cms please cheek. Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes i was just asked for review this page. need help sorry Reyk i am new to Wikipedia i don't know how to send neutral message. but thank you for response. Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i was Ignored this rules using
WP:UCS because this rule supported only to the big production films. NFF does not apply for this film because Zinga was completed principal photography. Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
some american Wikipedians wantedly targeting Indian related articles. This article is within the scope of
WP:KEEPSudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:ASPERSIONS and rethink your comments. Praxidicae (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2019 (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 Revolutionary Socialist League (U.S.). Sandstein 10:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

League for the Revolutionary Party

League for the Revolutionary Party (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 has no citations and only a link to the organization’s website. It has no elected officials or electoral history. Organization does not appear to have

significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a completely unsourced article that has been here - with nary a source - since Trotsky was alive. OK, maybe not that long, but since 2004 with no sources. gBooks shows nearly nothing [3]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC) strike iVote per sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see coverage here, here, its website has been saved by the Taminent Library at New York University [4], and here. A quick search produces these sources and it seems clear that a more thorough search would produce more. At the barest minimum, the content should be merged to Revolutionary Socialist League (U.S.) and the page redirected. However, given the sourcing above, it seems clear that the article should be kept and improved.--TM 00:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your second source is from Proletarian Revolution, which is this organization’s magazine. That’s self-publication and doesn’t establish notability or significant, non-trivial coverage The other three don’t qualify as
    significant, non-trivial coverage, and the last two aren’t even coverage at all. I would be supportive of a merge to Revolutionary Socialist League however. Toa Nidhiki05 12:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing editor. There is consensus here, with all 4 editors who have come to the page agreeing to the proposed merge.10:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Steinhauer

Jason Steinhauer (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)

Highly fluffy article created in draftspace as part of what appears to be a walled garden, and accepted by User:SwisterTwister--so yes it's problematic. It's a typical vanispam BLP for an academic who may have done a thing or two but does not achieve notability per NPROF or GNG. See the references--it's not there. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2019 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Singlish Sinhala Transliteration Scheme

Singlish Sinhala Transliteration Scheme (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)

Deprecated mid-2000s way of entering Sinhala text, no longer relevant, quickly superseded and seldom used even in its heyday. Seems to be mostly an ad for "Singlish for Sinhala SP", some WinXP abandonware.

WP:PROD'd twice, first as Singlish Typewriter; that failed when User:DGG removed the PROD; then under this new title, but User:Explicit felt that broke the PROD rules so here we are. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tapakapa

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting note to the side: before taking this article out of draftspace (unaccepted, may I remind you), the original article creator removed the AfC decline and the respective comments. I don't believe that's allowed? Tosi | he/him | t/c 18:32, 7 May 2019 (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/2019_May_7&oldid=1142613271"