Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 16 October	18 October >

Guide to deletion

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 Redraftify and split. Pretty clear consensus that the article is not yet ready for mainspace as it's questionable that circumcision and female genital mutilation should have been combined in the same topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting

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

The article has been separated into two entirely separate sections, which destroys the apparent purpose of the article. Separate articles already exist about each of the two separated sections (see and

Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country and Prevalence of circumcision). The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues. If the article itself does not consider the phenomena together, it appears to have no value. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

keep and reorganize per nominator's excellent reasoning.~T P W 12:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree With suggestion to separate into two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redraftify. This was moved prematurely from draftspace and should be deleted or moved back. Comparing the figures on one page seeks to draw a false equivalence between FGM and circumcision, which is original research. In addition, I oppose hosting any "list" article (as part of this list or separately) on the legality and
Prevalence of female genital mutilation by country. There are four types of FGM and multiple sub-types. For most countries, there are no nationally representative figures, and there are several countries in which some types are banned but not others, or it is banned outside hospital only, or banned only for minors. Each country would have to be individually sourced and kept updated, which would be a lot of work, and the author of this list has shown no interest in doing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or redraftify. "The purpose of the article seems to be to study the phenomena of male and female genital cutting as potentially correlated issues" – Indeed. Unfortunately, in the absence of reliable sources which study potential correlations, the article is riddled with original research. The nominator has it wrong on one count: it's not a matter of whether the article has value or not; it's simply a matter of whether the topic has sufficient reliable sources studying it for us to make an article. While these are being sought, the article should not be mainspace because of the concerns that Sarah indicates. --RexxS (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or TNT. Inappropriate to conflate circumcision and FSM. Reywas92^Talk 04:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split into two lists, each with a prominent link to the Prevalence of... prose articles. I considered the possibility of merging it with the relate Prevalence of... articles, but I don't see any easy way to make that happen. The "whole world" table doesn't fit comfortably with the continent-by-continent article. However, if someone else thinks that would be a good idea, then I'm okay with it, too. As a side note, I don't really see any policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging). I can see ways to improve the table, especially by adding a "Notes" section that allows some detailed explanations or links to more detailed explanations, but that's just a matter of improving the page, and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you don't see WP:No original research as a policy-based reason for deleting (rather than splitting or merging)? Or do you believe that all of the figures in the article were accurately taken directly from sources without any extrapolation by the editor who added them? --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Split and draftying both articles until sufficiently salient research is available. It is critically important that sources are right, and it is the correct research that being used. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and split, per above. Sceptre (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and split, per above. 4meter4 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per the above comments and split per @Reywas92: as I don't think the recent merge of circumcision and female genital mutilation was helpful. There are legitimate reasons, religious, hygienic, and the like, for the former whereas I can't think of any legitimate reasons for the latter. In short, as Reywas92 says, the two should not be confused.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 27 October 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 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed liquidity

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

This appears to be original research, basically only written about by its inventor - there's one short newspaper treatment, which appears to constitute the entirety of notice that the outside world has taken of the idea so far. (The "movement" and its website is, again, the originator) At best,

WP:TOOSOON. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from article talk page) @Elmidae: I can provide other sources that speak about Distributed Liquidity. I know it's a new theme, but it's important to know. The book "La buona moneta" by Prof. Pierangelo Dacrema, reserves a full paragraph to this theory. Is it enough for you? NuandaLM (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:TOOSOON for this topic to be on Wikipedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete -
we don't publish. There's lots of academic journals and ArXiv that do exactly that. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Elmidae: I found 4 indipendent authors who wrote about Distributed Liquidity: Prof. Pierangelo Dacrema (Università della Calabria), Prof. Roberto Tamborini (University of Trento), Phd Domenico Cortese, who is ad indipendent research who write on https://www.filosofiadeldebito.it/.

Comment I found an article that also is about this term: Akter, Nahida ; Nobi, Ashadun (Jun 2018). "Investigation of the Financial Stability of S&P 500 Using Realized Volatility and Stock Returns Distribution". Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 11(2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... no. The term is used in passing once, in the introduction, and puzzlingly out of context (actually that looks like a rote intro sentence copied from somewhere). I don't believe this is worth anything. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:03, 26 October 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 delete per G4

(non-admin closure) SD0001 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Angelo von Möller

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

Deleted by CSD A7 last year. No reliable independent sources cited in this new article, and I can't find anything independent myself; seems to fail

WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find a single article about von Möller in a news search via ProQuest. Fails
WP:NOTE. Cabrils (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete. Repost again. And give it a hefty dose of salt and a block for not here and didn't hear that. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. salt. Would seem to have a self published bio over at IMDb for appearing in his father's movie. or something. COI declaration needs to be extended to a bunch of other pages, and user should probably be banned from creating new pages (except through AfC?) Hydromania (talk) 10:11, 18 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kortnee Simmons

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

No coverage, been going for a while. no fans. Fails

WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is signed so worth checking.scope_creep^Talk 15:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very promotional, for example it says he co-starred in two notable films but he is in fact a long way down the credits lists Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A self-promoting artist who claims to be signed to a major label merely by using the company’s distribution services. Thus, we have this person creating their own vanity label—LarkMusic—and by becoming a client of a widely available service (EMPIRE, which represents many notable and non-notable labels and both established and aspiring artists) promotes it as being “signed to a major label.” Notability is not conferred by association; the notability here has to be evident for LarkMusic, which isn't. His acting career, as pointed out, consist of minor roles deep in cast listings or boasts of appearances that are uncredited in IMDB listings. The sourcing is junk (self-downloads, social media, small-time blogs, press-releases) and the article is written in a promotional, peacock-style. At best, he is building his career—which includes self-promotion—but has not achieved notability yet, so
WP:TOOSOON. To his credit, he at least is trying to claim notability on merit rather than trying to by association for being a music mogul's nephew. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
shared the stage with famous musicians, including this one. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per everyone above.4meter4 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 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

List of assets owned by Viacom#Dormant or shuttered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Quizilla

)

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

Only working reference is to a LiveJournal post. The website doesnt appear to be terribly notable, and has been defunct for a while. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
chatter) 00:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect' per
WP:CHEAP. I never understand why companies do this, except to eliminate the competition. Oh wait ... Bearian (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
List of assets owned by Viacom#Dormant or shuttered.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 25 October 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.
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Theo Germaine

Theo Germaine (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)

BLP of an actor, not yet
WP:NACTOR. A person has to have multiple significant roles, not just one, if you're going for "notable because they've been in stuff", and a person has to have considerably more than just one reference if you're going for "notable because they have press coverage". No prejudice against recreation in the future when there are more roles and better sourcing, but as of right now one significant supporting role supported by a single source is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I quickly found sourcing, including that this is one of three bigger roles for the actor, and interviews with him that would easily make a good article, which I think meets
WP:GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator), per WP:GNG. Oprah magazine, Reuters, Them, South China Morning Post, Chicago Tribune, Marie Claire, Gay Times, etc. Article needs expanding, but serves as an appropriate stub for now, IMO. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a
WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - added some more sources and minor info to the article --Spacepine (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator did not follow
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 25 October 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 delete.
CSD G7 (request). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

List of bakemono featured in Bakemono no e

List of bakemono featured in Bakemono no e (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 page contains information originally on Bakemono no e. The user who moved the list to this separate page did not give adequate justification for it. I moved all the information back to Bakemono no e, and I see no reason for this to be a separate page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the user who created this page. I did this a while back and I'm not sure if I would have now. TheAwesome Hwyh 22:03, 17 October 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 soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Graeme Pitkethly

Graeme Pitkethly (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 evidence that this individual has been the subject of coverage to satisfy
WP:GNG. Mentions in media are generally routine mentions in articles about Unilever, rather than himself. Jellyman (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 25 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Van Orsdels

The Van Orsdels (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. –Matthew - (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. Searches for sources yielded nothing. Incidentally, I'm not sure George Graquitena is notable either. Probably the same content creator made that article as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 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) 14:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund February

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

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

Not notable. Only links are his personal page at UCT and a self-published blog (Climb ZA). The page is supposed to be about a botanist but has no botany related info. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:PROF. We almost never keep articles about associate professors, unless they've written something cited in many of our articles. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:NACADEMIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flexer GH

Flexer GH (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 per
WP:NMUSIC. Sources given are all blogs or unsigned articles of a promotional tone. Google search (45 results) brings up more of the same. ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -
poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not
notable The Mirror Cracked (talk) 03:48, 25 October 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
O' Parvardigar (album). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Parvardigar Prayer

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Parvardigar Prayer

Articles for deletion/Parvardigar Prayer (2nd nomination)

Parvardigar Prayer (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:NOPAGE
and all that.
There's no significant or non-trivial coverage of this prayer, outside of (non-independent i.e. Meher-Baba-affiliated sources or un-reliable sources or personal memoirs other than a few scattered instances of a few lines in relation to
O' Parvardigar (album)
.
Seeking redirect and/or merge to
O' Parvardigar (album). ∯WBG^converse 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge. per nominator. Lacks independent coverage.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect/Merge. There doesn't seem to be any
WP:N to the prayer itself. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 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 Meher Baba. Sandstein 08:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amartithi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Amartithi

Articles for deletion/Amartithi (2nd nomination)

Amartithi (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 fail to see much of any notability of the subject (and non-trivial significant coverage about it, to the extents necessitated by
WP:NEVENT
, thus leading to a stand-alone page.
Trivial mentions in books of the Meher-Baba-Universe, mentions in personal memoirs and a few trivial name-drops over news-pieces are located.
There's a piece over South Asian Tribune but that's not independent (vide 'Dictated Sunday, 13th December 2009'). And there's another over a niche-outlet Asian Tribune that has a checkered history of indulging in partisan-journalism-for-pay and defaming journalists, who refused to be a part of their ring, which says volumes about reliability of the media.
Barring that, there's five lines at a broader entry over a two-volume encyclopedia by
WP:DIVERSE
.
As a consequence, seeking redirect to Meher Baba. ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Meher Baba.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 25 October 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) 14:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic College

Messianic College (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 this institution is accredited, also can't really find any indications of it passing
degree mill, and we should be careful not to provide legitimacy to such scams. Also note a red flag - no Brazilian wiki entry for this, generally most reputable higher education institutions will get a local wiki stub before English one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a
new religion sect. Bearian (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - agree with delete vote above. fails
WP:GNG Iamchinahand (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect/Merge to Church of World Messianity.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Thoughts of legitimizing a
degree mill scam would not be good. If something is notable (sourced) as being a scam we can call it that. Being sourced only through the "External links" leaves no option to me but to remove the article. We avoid wording like "claiming to be higher education" and "appears to be a seminary" by providing multiple reliable independent sources. Otr500 (talk
)

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. Sandstein 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square One (1997 film)

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 evidence of notability presented Tknifton (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment actually now I think about I could have nominated for speedy deletion or prodded it rather than bringing it here. But now its here I may as well leave it here unless anyone else agrees with a speedy delete. Tknifton (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic does not have significant coverage in the sources provided (or from a WP:BEFORE) search, so delete
talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the film has won a couple of awards, at the
verify that. @Dutchy85: - do you have any more info? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for drawing to my attention Lugnuts... I've added a few more references. This was a minor work I feel but still had a life... but over to other editors to see what they think... Dutchy85 (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The references listed by Shellwood are a single sentence description of the plot (which is, frankly, a better plot summary than is currently in the article) and half an explanation of the film on an Australian government website. Both do mention the awards. It won 2 awards, but I am unconvinced that there are more sources than those 2. My efforts to find more sources on google do not give any reliable, independent, results. I haven't found anything from the two film festivals that gave awards, so those might be decent sources. Of the sources in the article itself, none rise to significant. Rockphed (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: A ProQuest search of Australia and NZ newspaper articles only resulted in 2 articles, one of which was the obituary for the film's director and I have added it to the page (the second reference was trivial). I would be inclined to delete it but don't hold a strong view. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has significant coverage (an in-depth analysis) in Barrett Hodson, Peter Mudie (2001). Straight Roads and Crossed Lines: The Quest for Film Culture in Australia from the 1960s?. Bernt Porridge Group. p. 189-190. That in conjunction with the other added references and award wins is sufficient to meet
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 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. The page is also, in its present state, and unambiguous copyright violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Kiandjan

Pierre Kiandjan (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 have searched in English And French and can find no solid in-depth coverage that is not a blog, interview, online portfolio or advertisement for an event. The current article sources are the same.
talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:01, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - The subject of this article does not pass WP:ARTIST nor WP:GNG nor WP:BIO notability criteria. There is nothing remarkable or significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. The referencing is from auction houses, blogs, online-portfolios, interviews, listings and other primary or promotional sources. After searching online, I found nothing of substance. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Artnet source does fit with WP:ARTIST 2-a rule. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Collapse discussion of how notability works

Aside from the fact that the ARTNET reference is just an auction result page with no independent reporting...
talk) 17:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
First, Artnet is the most prominent rated artists database for collectors, it's not "just an auction result page" at all. Secondly, how could you say his work isn't "originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" ? It obviously is. That's why :
- his lithographs are worth 1800 € on the art market ;

- Le Journal de la Maison has featured his work on cover ;

- Monopol Magazin has talked about him.

Howareyoutheyus (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC+1)
That's you drawing a conclusion about how notable he is based on several trivial mentions. We do not give value to any of those things for notability. If several art critics or reviewers or museums say he is notable, we conclude he is notable; we do not actually do it ourself. Notability is mostly about counting sources. Please read
talk) 22:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ThatMontrealIP It's not my conclusion at all, it's WP:ARTIST 2A rule's conclusion. Indeed, you'll figure out that any artist featured on Artnet is obviously "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" when you know what that database consists in. Also, the sources are reliable according to WP:RS. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Are we talking about the same Artnet source? All I see is a one page auction result that gives very basic details and says "Subscribe now to view details for this work, and gain access to over 10 million auction results." We do not put any value on that here.
talk) 12:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
ThatMontrealIP Please be fair and mention the right source which is the artist page, not the piece's. And as you may know, some promintent artists including Pierre Kiandjan are rated on art market because their work is well-known by collectors and experts. Then those rated arists are recommanded to Artnet by art market professionnals so that Artnet add them within its database. You're arguing there's one piece published, but is a 150 words article on Wikipedia less important than à 1 000 000 words article ? I don't think so. As it is on Artnet. While I've given to you enough reliable arguments regarding WP:ARTIST and WP:RS criteria, you're still persisting with your initial point of view and have kept for hours seeking "basic details" that could rule in your favour, I'm not sure such an insincere behavior fits with moderators tasks. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus You may be misunderstanding the policies and guidelines, I hope this helps to clarify. Artnet is a paid subscription database directory that tracks auction sales, it is not a reliable source for the importance of an artist. It does not matter whatsoever if one of his lithographs sold for $1,800 at an auction; that does not establish notability. An in-depth article or review in the New York Times or Le Monde or Le Parisien is a reliable source that can count towards notability. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of artists sell work, and exhibit work, and have mentions in publications. Not all of these very ordinary occurrences are important enough to establish notability. If an artist simply has a mention in a publication, rather than an in-depth article or review written from an art-critical or art historical perspective, it is not considered important enough to establish notability. Listings and blogs are often something clipped from a press release, they are not in-depth coverage. They are simply informing the public of an event. If an artist shows at non-notable galleries, or, in the case of Pierre Kiandjan, in furniture and design stores, that is not the same as showing at the Museum of Modern Art or another notable museum. Whether it is a one-person show or a group show is also taken into consideration, as is whether that artist is in the permanent collections of important notable museums - and these need to be backed-up by references. You claim that Mr. Kiandjan's fame is indicated by being "featured" on the cover of a magazine - this, with all due respect, is untrue. The magazine cover is for apartment design, and there happens to be a small work of his leaning on a desk; there is no mention of Mr. Kiandjan - he is not the feature of the magazine cover. Netherzone (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone First you're wrong because Pierre Kiandjan is mentionned by Le Journal de la maison, unless you didn't want to see that mention. You've done another big mistake : be careful not to mix artists just selling art you're talking about and known artists on the art market, they're absolutely not the same. Artnet is a notable artists database, however you agree or not. Moreover your speech about in-depth articles is paradoxical : an article in Le Parisien - in-depth or not - is less reliable to establish notability than belonging to Artnet database. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus Sorry to disappoint, but this is not an in-depth art-critical, art-historical article or review on Kiandjan. The article is about the apartment and the apartment designer. It discusses Xavier de St. Jean and Azimut Studio for interior decoration. It is not about Pierre Kianjidan. For example, “The owner wanted a kitchen dining room, a living room, two bedrooms with dressing room, a bathroom with separate toilet, a laundry room and a floor under the slope to create a guest room or office.” It then discusses construction and insulation materials used in the apartment. The only mention of Mr. Kiandjan is embedded in captions of two of seven photos: “Custom carpentry and standard cabinets make the most of the wall surface playing with the raster effect. Sofa "Facett", Ligne Roset. Paintings by Pierre Kiandjan including "Rouge Express" (left).” The other caption: “The bathroom combines black and blue. Color tiles and material at Ceramica Paris. Round mirror by Hay. Artwork of Pierre Kiandjan.” I think you may be misinterpreting the guidelines and policies for what constitutes notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone After having told that an article by Le Parisien can establish notability, you don't recognize the same about a featuring on another big French national magazine cover... That's not very logical. In addition, why don't you admit that Artnet is an official media about art market sales and then a reliable source ? Howareyoutheyus (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Delete I see no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor does the subject meet any of the subject-specific notability criteria: not widely cited, no significant new concept/theory/technique, no major body of work, no exhibitions, no significant critical attention, no collections.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/pierre-kiandjan/ is an auction site, and confirms one sale.

http://www.40fakes.com/2016/10/pierre-kiandjan/ is a blog, not a reliable source

http://www.fubiz.net/2016/02/19/color-mixed-illustrations-playing-with-optical-illusions/ is a design agency's blog, not a reliable source

https://www.juxtapoz.com/news/painting/pierre-kiandjan-paints-color-illusions/ is a very short paragraph, not bylined, that is mostly a slideshow of his work.

https://www.lejournaldelamaison.fr/le-journal-de-la-maison/reportages-maisons/appartements/122985-122985.html does not mention the subject

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/12/kiandjan-illusions-on-exhibit-in-paris.html mentions eight new exhibitions, a bit of an exaggeration, it's really 8 works on display in two furniture stores. Those are not significant exhibitions

http://www.blunblun.com/pierre-kiandjan is primarily a link to an interview with lots of images, it is not a reliable source; see http://www.blunblun.com/press

https://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/portfolios/pierre-kiandjan/ is a portfolio/interview, not a critical assessment of an artist's work

https://www.kaltblut-magazine.com/found-on-the-internet-pierre-kiandjan/ makes some a claim: he reinvents optic art, but unfortunately does not tell us how he does that. If Kiandjian had really reinvented optic art (I think they mean Op art?) then the art world would have taken notice and we'd see many more sources discussing his supposed innovation

https://www.discogs.com/fr/Alex-Gopher-Back-To-Basics-EP/release/8258619 shows that he has created cover art for a CD, but offers nothing beyond that

https://etapes.com/une-selection-de-vinyles-graphiques-et-intemporels/ shows that same CD, again without any additional information. Vexations (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Op Art was invented in the ~~1960's more than two~~ early 20th c. many decades before this artist was born. Netherzone (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Addendum: The point I was trying to make is that there is no proof whatsoever that PK "reinvented" Op art in the 2010's. Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment took me to our
talk) 00:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Collapse yet another discussion of how notability works

Vexations A CD ? It's a collaboration with a French Touch legend... Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus, Sorry, an EP, not a CD. As for the collaboration with Alex Gopher, it does not affect Kiandjan's notability, although "legend" seems like an exaggeration, given the unconvincing sourcing of our article on Alex Gopher: wordpress.com, discodemons.net (dead), discogs.com and soundtrackinfo.com, none of which indicate that Gopher himself is notable. Vexations (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Vexations, your latest assertion is a bit confused because it has two possible meanings : either you're telling he's not notable then you couldn't be more wrong, or you're telling that his article only needs to be updated to reflect more his effective notability and then confirming that such a collaboration is a reliable source. (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
WP:NOTINHERITED. An artist designing an EP cover for another artist does not establish notability; hundreds of thousands of artists have done so. Also, a friendly reminder to please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~). Netherzone (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTINHERITED forbidden arguments. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 17:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC+1)
@
talk) 16:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I was pointing out that notability cannot be established by association with someone who is not notable himself. That resembles the explanatory notes at WP:NOTINHERITED, except that in this case, my objection is even stronger. Not only is "Gopher is notable, Kiandjan worked with Gopher, therefor Kiandjan is notable" an argument that should be avoided, but the argument that Kiandjan is notable because he worked with Gopher neither valid nor sound because one of the premises is false. Arguing that Gopher is notable doesn't makes any difference for this AfD, because even if it were true that Gopher is notable, we'd still reject the conclusion that Kiandjan is notable because consensus is that that kind of reasoning is not valid, regardless of the truth of the premises. The way to establish the notability of a subject is through independent, reliable sources. If they exist, I will revise my assessment to a keep, and I'm confident that all the other experienced editors here will do the same. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Your hasty rejection of Gopher's notablity proves that you're easily rejecting too fast anyone's notability. The collaboration with Gopher isn't just "working with" but making a record art, and no rule prevents this argument from being a reliable source. Also, you can't fairly question Kiandjan's notability till you haven't reasonably refuted that Artnet is a reliable source and a featuring on Le Journal de la Maison's cover is at least as reliable as an article in Le Parisien, that Netherzone quoted as an exemple of reliable source. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC+1)
WP:AGF and strike your comments about me, I'm done here. Vexations (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Dear Vexations, Keeping an improvised and hypothetical point of view and looking for any possible argument that could support it doesn't fit with WP:AGF. Indeed, while my arguments are steady, yours are fluctuating. Also fortunately, not every sold artist can be featured on Artnet, but only notable ones, and it's an absolute rule. As I already told before, fact than one piece is displayed isn't less important than two or more for the same reasons as a 150 words article on Wikipedia isn't less important than à 1 000 000 words article. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC+1)

@
talk) 13:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes our notability guide. An artist is known for their work. Check out the
WP:RSs on the article for our subject on the French WIKI. Perhaps an ambitious editor could add some of these sources here. Lightburst (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
talk) 02:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

more of the same

@
WP:RS. Widewalls is a magazine about modern and contemporary art. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 11:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Howareyoutheyus That is yet another misrepresentation. Widewalls is a vanity blog site where an artist can upload their own information as self-promotion. It is yet another primary source, which is not a RS. The blog "article" was published the day you added it to the WP article, and if you scroll to the bottom of the the blog it clearly states: "Text and images courtesy of the artist." - If the text is provided by the artist it is not a NPOV independent secondary reliable source. It is simply a blog for artists to advertise themselves, it is not critical/arthistorical in-depth coverage. Netherzone (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reinforce the important part there, Widewalls source says Text and images courtesy of the artist. All images Copyright © Kiandjan. All rights reserved.
talk) 13:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
ThatMontrealIP, this legal mention doesn't demonstrate any kind of COI, while you're still manifestly willing to prove your first hypothesis about it. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 21:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)
In my experience, nobody but the article subject has such a deep interest in arguing for a page. You have wasted a lot of valuable editor time.
talk) 20:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
ThatMontrealIP: It's not a sufficient argument. Anyone has fortunately the same right as you to support different ideas. Howareyoutheyus (talk
) 22:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC+1)
Absolutely, but we identify those people by the fact that they have an interest in more than one article.
talk) 20:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Howareyoutheyus You are not being truthful, the blog post on widewalls clearly states that TEXT AND IMAGES were provided by Pierre Kiandjan, therefore it is a self-published primary source, and not a reliable source. BTW, did PK give you the photographs to upload to commons, or are they your own, or? It is WP policy to acknowledge a WP:COI. If you were here to build an encyclopedia, you would have long moved on to other tasks. Netherzone (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: Of course editors are asking for biographical information, but no section allows to "upload" any content on Widewall unlike what you've just said because this magazine has an editorial line. While your question looks like a weird intentional trap, I'm answering anyway : he did not and they're not, by the way that's why those contents have been deleted. Also, uploading content on WP neither prove COI. Howareyoutheyus (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC+1)

Delete. As the nomination points out, "no solid in-depth coverage that is not a blog, interview, online portfolio or advertisement". – Athaenara ✉ 19:20, 20 October 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 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honours School System, Lahore

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Honours School System, Lahore

Articles for deletion/Honours School System, Lahore (2nd nomination)

Honours School System, Lahore (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 25 October 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 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn-e-Imam Degree Science College

Ibn-e-Imam Degree Science College (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 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 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Lalazar Public School and College Thana Malakand

Superior Lalazar Public School and College Thana Malakand (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 25 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Grammar School

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

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How likely is it that someone who types "English Grammar School" in the search bar is looking for an article about a specific school in Pakistan? The principle of least astonishment says
English Grammar School may simply be redirected.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. REDIRECT to Grammar school#England.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 25 October 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 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Montessori International

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Reach Montessori International

Articles for deletion/Reach Montessori International (2nd nomination)

Reach Montessori International (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 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) ミラ P 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Idyl (Musician)

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 subject of this article fails
WP:MUSICBIO. He is only known for winning The Voice Nigeria, a single event. He has released six songs since he started his music career and none of them have been discussed in significant detail. Per the article, he has been making music since 2012. An artist who has been making music for 7 years with no album and only six singles to his name cannot be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artiste won a notable competition in Nigeria, which was aired across Africa, and even though he does not have an album out, his singles have been quite successful and according to reports he is one of the most popular artistes from his region as indicated here ^[1].Philphleg (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philphleg: Winning a notable event doesnt make one notable. Which of his singles have been "successful"? Can you provide a reliable source to support your statement that his singles have been successful. His songs did not chart on any country's official music chart and were not critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as clearly passes criteria 9 of
WP:Notability is not temporary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Atlantic306: There's no such thing as the The Voice Africa. The subject participated in The Vocie Nigeria, a single country competition. Said competiion did not broadcast internationally. Can you provide a reliable source that it was broadcast internationally? The Vanguard and The Guardian sources are interviews and are not independent of him. As I stated earlier, the subject is not a notable act. He doesn't have a music career to speak of. He only has 7 singles to his name and none of them are notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, winning a national tv competition that is covered in reliable sources still passes criteria 9 of
WP:Notability is not temporary do you think a winner of The Voice in the US or UK would be deleted? I very much doubt it, so we must avoid systemic bias, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't see any bias here. The subject simply has not done enough from a musical standpoint. He has been making music since 2012 and has nothing to show for it. The only claim to notability is his participation in The Voice Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes
WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the requirement of
WP:NMUSIC. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. passes
WP:NMUSIC Lightburst (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - won a large, well-known competition in a large country (my !vote would be different if this was The Voice Gambia). Bearian (talk) 13:11, 21 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lavisher School

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

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Iamchinahand (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 25 October 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 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NED Foundation Higher Secondary School

NED Foundation Higher Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 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) 14:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Azm-e-Nau School & College

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Azm-e-Nau School & College

Articles for deletion/Azm-e-Nau School & College (2nd nomination)

Azm-e-Nau School & College (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vary small, for-profit middle and high school segregated by gender, of unknown location. Even if this little school were notable, this
page is a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 25 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal City Public School (Pakistan)

Royal City Public School (Pakistan) (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 independent source found for the for-profit school, fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Störm (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Searches for sources yielded nothing.4meter4 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom.
independent sources to advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 12:16, 25 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mientka Duo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mientka Duo

Articles for deletion/Mientka Duo (2nd nomination)

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

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

Article on a music duo that survived AfD in 2009 but I can’t find anything that would demonstrate notability now. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only just. The article claims that the band was the subject of an Emmy-award nominated documentary on PBS and provides two sources, one of which is a dead redirect but the other does point to an archived page at the Wayback Machine. I'm not sure about the
self-published or affiliated. Criterion 12 of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles states [musicians] may be notable if [they have] been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. The claim in red, although it could be sourced a little bit better, seems to meet the standard stated in the guideline in blue. SITH (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per above comment, as they do seem to pass
WP:NMUSIC criteria 12 so the article should be retained and improved imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have updated the links and added more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @RebeccaGreen:. Mccapra (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I should have added that I updated the info, as one of the sources I found was an obituary for half of the duo! RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:29, 25 October 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. Sandstein 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winter sports in the United States

Winter sports in the United States (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)

"Winter sports" is not a sport, but a collection of rather disparate sports, some Olympic, some not. I had sent this article to draft space and explained why at User talk:Dwanyewest/Archive 2#Sports in the US articles, but it has been resurrected with mainly the same problems the original had.
It is a
original research
conclusions from flimsy sources.
The lead is a typical example; "is a sport which has only limited popular support"? It isn't a sport, and the source used to reference this states "Snow-based recreation contributes $67 billion annually and supports over 900,000 jobs in the United States.", which hardly shows evidence of "limited popular support". And the source is only about "snow-based recreation" (not sport!), so it excludes ice skating and ice hockey, to name just those two.
"Biathlon is something Americans have been successful at internationally" is sourced to an article naming biathlon as the one winter sport the US never medalled in at the Olympics, and only in 2017 at the World Championships. Basically, the source flatly contradicts the statement in our article.
"The United States is a traditional power house in winter sports" is sourced to an article that states that before the introduction of more "extreme" sports (snowboarding or freestyle skiing) in 1994, the US were not a power house but an also-ran compared to their results at the Summer games: "The U.S. Stunk At The Winter Olympics Until Extreme Sports Came Along " is the title, which says it all.
If (and it's a big if) we need an article on this subject, it may be best to simply start from scratch.
Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: There are 4-ish other "Winter sport(s) in country" articles:
Winter sport in Australia

Winter sports in Slovakia

Winter Sports in Switzerland - redirect to List of ski areas and resorts in Switzerland

Winter sports in India

As for this article, it might be a notable topic, but I might be inclined to
WP:NUKEIT and start over. Chris857 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

First, this article is full of newbie mistakes.

Second, I agree with Chris857, that this article is about a notable topic, suitable for a standalone article - provided there is no earlier article that already covered the topic. If there is an earlier, superior article I think deletion would be inappropriate. A redirect, or a merge and redirect, preserving the history, would be appropriate. Why preserve the history? Because it contains references and possibly other elements worthy of being cannibalized.

What if there are no articles already covering this topic? Then why wouldn't stubification be the best choice? Geo Swan (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the existence of these other articles shows, and the notability of not only specific winter sports, but groups and people well within that, should be more than enough to justify the existence of this article. Perhaps it is in need of improvement, I won't argue with that, but it is nonetheless not in any way worth deletion at this time. 128.210.106.65 (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The content is abysmal, but the subject is obviously notable. I've begun overhauling it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a badly written article can be improved, then that should be done instead of deletion per
WP:DEL-REASON. Hzh (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per everyone above. And we should probably close this because
it's SNOWING (I couldn't resist).4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 25 October 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. Books in libraries are no substitute for proper sourcing. Sandstein 08:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Jackman

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/John Jackman

John Jackman (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 wiki has almost no sources at all. It seems to be written by the subject, as many of the contributions seem to be done the subject himself, with a couple of usernames, including JJackman. This is not neutral writing. The lack of sources in this article, and the lack of notability for the subject make it seem unimportant and not actually viable for a Wikipedia article. Nathan Love (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his books are held in over 2000 librarys worldwide according to Worldcat which usually indicates that reviews are available offline if not online. Any promotionalism can be edited out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra time needed to find supposed reviews that @Atlantic306: suggested exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 23:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
WP:NOTCLEANUP notable author per Worldcat. Wm335td (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. First, I don't think any part of
WP:FRANKENSTEIN is being created in the world cat searches. Third, I found exactly 0 reliable sources when I searched for "John Jackman author filmmaker" on google. Rockphed (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at it a little more, the two books (one has 3 editions) listed in the article are available in 475 libraries and 0 libraries. Atlantic306, can you explain finding his works in 2000 libraries? Rockphed (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two publications, this shows more holdings here, having said that I haven't found any additional coverage on google Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I tried to verify the awards, and none appear to be significant. Some are only for other parties who contributed to his films. I have cross-linked Newton's Grace to Wesley (film) as those are the only Wikipedia articles on his works. – Fayenatic London 11:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 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) 14:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fab five (Ateneo)

Fab five (Ateneo) (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)

Fancruft. No standalone notability The Banner talk 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a fan page. This can be mentioned in one sentence of the Ateneo women's volleyball team and that would suffice.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 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 08:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US Arab Chamber of Commerce

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/US Arab Chamber of Commerce

Articles for deletion/US Arab Chamber of Commerce (2nd nomination)

US Arab Chamber of Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a organisation that lacks
notability. The provided references do not establish notability. (1) The chamber's own web site is not an independent source. (2) The Saudi Embassy page on document certification simply lists this organisation as one of many offices that can receive certain types of certifying documents. A directory entry does not establish notability. My own searches for sources do not turn up anything. Note that there are other entities with "US Arab Chamber of Commerce" in the name like "National US Arab Chamber of Commerce" and " Bilateral US Arab Chamber of Commerce" which are not the same organisation. I also found some organisations with the same name in book searches but these do not appear to the be the same company as their HQ do not match with the one written about here. And in any case, those book search results are directory like entries and would not help in establishing notability. Whpq (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
to source significantly. Please ping me if you prove me wrong. Bearian (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. @Whpq: Would this be useful as a disambiguation page, given the many organizations with this title?4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: No. This is the only article under this title. What would be disambiguated? -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that it lacks enough sources or it is not notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:36, 26 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetuelle

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Perpetuelle

Articles for deletion/Perpetuelle (2nd nomination)

Perpetuelle (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)

Defunct website. Only 1 working reference. Doesnt seem very notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has this website moved to here?, anyway, agree with nominator that this is a delete as not meeting
significant/indepth sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Austin James Smith

Austin James Smith (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 coach, fails
WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a non-notable coach. Having recently gone through many coach articles, I have doubts that everyone who ever was a head coach of football at a school that is currently NCAA Division 1 in football is notable. Although I have to admit being hesitant to start this new deletion campaign since it would only elimante articles on a few marginal coaches from long ago and would not do anything to work against Wikipedia's very abundant presentist bias. Currently 1989 is the year with the most articles in its birth year category. There are lots of bios that lack birth dates, primarily for living people, which might if better covered move the top year a few years back, but I have my doubts. Smith is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO Delete The guy is responsible for virtual reality being used in football and coaches professional football. Hes innovated the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RunNShootGuy (talk • contribs) 04:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a
source for that statement? The sources you added to the article do not support it, and this article says another company was implementing VR into college football around the same time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That might very well have weight, but we need a source to support it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportTechie article which is owned by Sports Illustrated supports it. Also here is a video from the University that started it with Austin https://vimeo.com/188832528 ... VR and Holograms are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A2D6:240:54A:AA0F:DD7A:5522 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The SportTechie article does not support a claim that he is the sole reason VR is in college and professional football, only that he is one of many who helped bring it along. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources, I don't see any indication of any coaching notability yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete currently not notable as a coach, even if the VR claim could be proven I'm not sure if it puts Smith above the bar of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 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 British Rail Class 720. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 720/6

British Rail Class 720/6 (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)

Repeated attempts to delete this article by converting to a redirect, with the rationale that it is sufficiently covered at British Rail Class 720 and other rolling stock subclasses do not have WP articles. I take no position on the deletion, except to think that it should be discussed before disappearing. Lithopsian (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as a technical matter and as a way to close this AFD immediately, because no discussion is warranted. I don't care if the topic is redirected or not by editors. The only thing to do here is say is that there is no nomination for deletion provided, and no action either way should be taken at the article or redirect. By "Keep", i do not mean it should not be redirected. ~~User:Shellwood~~User:Lithopsian is explicitly not accepting accountability for anything; this is a waste of AFD editors' time; no more AFD editors should have to consider this. AFD nominations without a deletion rationale are to be closed immediately. Merging/redirecting options can/should be considered at Talk page of the topic article and/or the merge/redirect topic. To ~~Shellwood~~Lithopsian, please read up on how to make real AFD nominations before doing anything like this again. --Doncram (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I did not propose this nomination, please try and sort out who does what before posting. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am very sorry, my mistake, it was Lithopsian. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a sub-class of rolling stock is unneeded; there is no article for any other sub-classes of rolling stock on the site. Merge with British Rail Class 720, which is the main article for the whole class. Creating sub-class articles for other types of rolling stock would be unnecessary. --SavageKieran (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per DoncramAlthough Doncram is right and speedy keep is procedurally the right thing to do because this is not an AfD but a request to merge, I agree that Merge is an appropriate outcome for this particular page and am happy to change my !vote. Bookscale (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a speedy keep necessary on an unnecessary article like this? It's simple; this is one train which should be kept on one article, just like all other types of British rolling stock across the site. --SavageKieran (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Class 720 article, no need for an article for this particular sub-class. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Class 720 article. We never have articles for sub-classes.
talk) 12:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
WP:SPLIT no need for a separate article. ps. i do, however, agree with Doncram that this should never have come to afd, discussions should be held on article talkpage/relevant project/user talkpages, i do see that a discussion was comenced prior to this afd so why was this commenced? Coolabahapple (talk
)

Merge with
Greater Anglia's class 720 and not much C2C's. Information should be moved into the page with a balance between the two. No need for this page Wkc19 :) (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Class 720 for reasons already stated by others.Superalbs (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Class 720 per everyone else above.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Aviators & Aviation

Pakistan Aviators & Aviation (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 verify the information in
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. YSSYguy (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an airline with five smallish airplanes probably fails
WP:GNG. Compare Nursing in Pakistan, which I helped to save. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 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 08:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I.V. Doc

I.V. Doc (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)

Absolutely non-notable company offering unproven therapies composed of medications outside of their licensing scope. Mentioned in the public media only in paid infomercials. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 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 08:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moropant Pingley

Moropant Pingley (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; hardly any significant coverage about the subject other than this TOI piece. Held prominent roles in VHP and played the strings behind BJP's ascend to power but shunned publicity. Moropant Pingle/मोरोपंत पिंगले are alternate search terms, FWIW... ∯WBG^converse 13:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Abouhamzeh

Iman Abouhamzeh (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 BLP with no direct sources. Also, it's an orphan. The only things preventing a PROD are the external links, none of which seems to establish the notability of the subject. From an internet search, neither the subject nor his New York Festivals award is notable under
WP:NMUSIC, which I checked just in case. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 11:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete non-notable podcast creator. Fails
WP:GNG. Farhikht (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment can’t find any reliable sources in Persian, his native language:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Farhikht (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. No matter how popular his podcast could be, if there's no sources about him, then he's not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:SIGCOV, a useful guideline that shows just how inadequate person is in terms of notability.Strandvue (talk) 00:55, 24 October 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 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extensible Threat Management

Extensible Threat Management (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 apparently deleted by PROD already and so can't be deleted by PROD again? I don't see any deleted edits. Dictionary term is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wikitionary article 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For context, this was previously soft deleted via PROD at the title Extensible Threat Management (XTM), then the title was recreated and later moved.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary and delete. Mccapra (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:OR. We do not publish new terms nor original research, period. Bearian (talk) 13:25, 21 October 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 09:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orga

AfDs for this article
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orga

Orga (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 still fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth mentioning that this article might be able to survive if it is fleshed out a bit; the Godzilla franchise has been heavily covered by reliable reference books from the likes of Kodansha and Shogakukan from the Showa era right the way through to the present day, and Godzilla 2000 (and thus Orga by extension) has been covered by several more recent reference books as a result; Wikizilla and Toho Kingdom both cite these books, and provide reference lists which could be of use to potential editors.--BrayLockBoy (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything except mentions in passing and fictional character biography in book sources, but I am open to revising my vote if someone can actually provide a deeper analysis. Ping User:FOARP, maybe you could take a look at this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there doesn't seem to be a list article which would be appropriate to redirect to. Fails
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 24 October 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 09:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Page

Big Page (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 evidence of any notability. Was nominated for a local award. No hits, no awards. Fails
WP:SINGER. Searches reveal very little other than this article and social media Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Velella  ^{Velella Talk} 23:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

""delete"" — Preceding
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Hip hopper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 24 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Muema

Albert Muema (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 player fails
WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a professional match yet. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Doesn't provide enough coverage to support notability. Barca (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 19 October 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. The articles I was sent via email each contain a decent paragraph each, and are independent of the subject. Some may view this as not enough coverage, however, book reviews are often published in this type of concise format. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allies of the Night

Allies of the Night (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:BOOKCRIT. Not finding independent significant coverage/book reviews, etc. in source searches to qualify notability. Also finding no evidence that this book meets any other of the criteria at WP:BOOKCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are two book reviews, which is enough to meet
WP:NBOOK
:

Science Fiction Chronicle
. Vol. 26, no. 12. p. 41.

Ver Voort, Heather (October 2004). "Allies of the Night". School Library Journal. Vol. 50, no. 10. p. 176.

ProQuest has some more hits which I can look into if you'd like. Haukur (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haukurth: I'm unable to access the sources myself. Do both reviews provide significant coverage? If so, I can withdraw this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so but I've sent you an e-mail with the text of each so you can evaluate. I also threw in a third review, from
The Sunday Business Post. All three reviews are short but they're clearly independent and critical reviews and not just blurbs or paid coverage. Haukur (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The author lists and gives the text of some reviews of the book on his webpage: [2] This includes two of those mentioned above as well as some others that may be relevant - though some are probably self-published and not RS. Haukur (talk) 08:19, 18 October 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
Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 08:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Cylon Raider

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Cylon Raider

Articles for deletion/Cylon Raider (2nd nomination)

Cylon Raider (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:TROUTed... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "three paragraph long blog-post" is a post on the AMC blog (that is the blog of the television channel) by John Brownlee, a journalist/reviewer apparently active in the field of sci-fi. This doesn't appear to be the self-published work that the nom is implying but probably isn't
WP:SIGCOV
as only one the paras is actually talking about the subject.

In terms of what I found in my
WP:SIGCOV in the So Say We All and Cinefex coverage . FOARP (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

PS - It seems the Cylon Raider is also part of the Victoria & Albert's Museum of Childhood collection, but I'm not sure how much weight to place on that. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Cylons In Americ book dedicates one paragraph (on. p. 95) and few mentions in passing to the Raider; and I don't see anything that goes beyond primary description of this plot device ("CR is a biomechanical ship..." etc.). I don't think that the
WP:ONEEVENT-like niche publications about the movie prop being sold and a model being released. Sorry, this still doesn't seem like a topic for encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

New Atlas is a clear
WP:SIGCOV. So, in the end, if you ignore all the references sustaining notability then you may conclude that a subject is not notable, but this is not what we do here at AFD. FOARP (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

PS - also Cf. coverage in the following
WP:NEWSORG articles: 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"the paragraph discusses the topic in detail". Here's a big problem. In-depth discussion is generally hard to find in a paragraph. Paragraph may be better than a single sentence, but overall is rarely sufficient to meet in-depth requirement. If something is discussed only in a paragraph, it is probably not notable. And so far all the sources we have here are just this - paragraph (at best, sentence in some cases) mentions of the topic in more general overviews of the BG fanchise. Like your first extra links, 15 ships from BG. Sure, every gets a sentence or two - but that's not enough to make any of them notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the page-length article? FOARP (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine... if you want to make article about the model. Only semi-related to the article about the fictional plot device.
WP:NOTINHERITED: a review of a toy is not a great source for establishing notability of whatever the toy is based on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It's an adaptation of the original work - similar to a film made from a book, or a translation into another language or so-forth - this is very obviously not a situation where we're talking about inherited notability because that's where you assume notability of a small element in a larger, more notable work (unless you think the model is the larger work?). Saying its "semi-related" means its related, which it obviously is as its a direct representation of the subject. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS - oddly GBooks allows you to see different part of a book depending on where you're logging in from so, logging in from a different computer, I've just noticed that So Say We All: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Battlestar Galactica also gives
WP:SIGCOV to the development of the Cylon Raider design - note that this coverage is in the (small-font) author-written sections and not only in the interview section, although the interviewees do also provide an extensive discussion of the design of the raider. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). Not independently notable per nom, only in the context of the Cylons._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Most of the above sources are trivial mentions. Toy reviews are in no way a sign of notability on a topic unless that review is in some way special, the toy in particular being reviewed for some special reason. Otherwise, it's just one of many cookie cutter reviews on that site, which shows that review has no weight. Production information is good, but it should be placed into the main article if there is no other real world context on which to build an article. TTN (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to
Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) per Zxcvbnm.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica)

Seraphs (Battlestar Galactica) (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 this ficitonal concept passes
WP:GNG in general. The article is a pure description, with a mixture of primary sources and an interview or two with the show creators, but no source is in-depth in either case, the topic is just mentioned in passing most of the time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters as not independently notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG, or redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters, if it's listed there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:08, 24 October 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 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LTL Mandarin School

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

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

Another unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet
WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for small companies to promote their businesses. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another spammy article of a language school of no significance. -Zanhe (talk) 05:06, 18 October 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) 05:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Varma

Akshay Varma (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:NACTOR Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Not notable. This is promotional article. —
want to talk? 08:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no claim of notability. Deb (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 19 October 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 08:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil One

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

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

I found no significant coverage per
WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see this review and this mention for an award/festival, but I don't see this meeting
WP:NFILM as neither of these happened "at least five years after initial release". Seems like this film disappeared without trace in terms of notability within a year of it being released. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Is it likely that someone might type "The Evil One" into the search bar? If so, what are they looking for? Probably not this content! They could be looking for
The Evil One (Roky Erickson album); Wikipedia's content on the personification of evil, which currently seems to reside at Devil; or maybe Satan. Therefore if the outcome of this debate is "delete", then please could the closer delete the content and then create a disambiguation page in its space; and if it's not to delete, then please could the closer move the current content to The Evil One (film) and then create a disambiguation page in the space left behind?—S Marshall T/C 16:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. No objection to a disambiguation page being created as there is probably more than one target article.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 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. Lourdes 00:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables

Articles for deletion/Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables (2nd nomination)

Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables (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 don't know how this one survived the first AfD nomination. It is hopelessly over-technical; something that (if at all) should be mentioned in a section in Probit model. Right now this is the econometrics equivalent of having an article iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage on top of iPhone 11. bender235 (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clearly way too technical. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with User:Mark viking's "Keep" !vote in the first AFD. --Doncram (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark viking's comments seem beside the point in my opinion: nobody doubts that this particular model "is real and seems adequately referenced." It sure is, but it's an overly special corner case that does not merit its own article. Next thing we have an article on Tobit model in an unbalanced panel with interaction terms and so on. --bender235 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Neither "Too technical" nor "Too detailed" is a
WP:NOTGUIDE? FOARP (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I would say it's
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Basically the same reason why we don't have the article iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage. --bender235 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I get what you're saying here, but I think
WP:UNDUE emphasis to relatively minor aspects of the iphone. FOARP (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written so increadibly badly that the article is incomprehensible even to the experts, so much so that the page is a borderline
WP:A1 case. I am a professional mathematician myself and I have no idea what the page is talking about. There are no definitions of any kind, the topic of the article is not coherently described, the various quantities/notations/variables used are not defined or explained, and there are no clearly idetifiable and properly formulated mathematical statements. Basically just a bunch of incoherent semi-mathematical verbiage. In mathematics we refer to this kind of text as "not even wrong". Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, I am an econometrician and can attest that the article is correct, although poorly written. However, even the most beautiful rewrite does not change the fact of my opening statement, that this particular model is too much of a special case to merit its own article. --bender235 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is no more "correct" than the sentence "If $x_{ij}+U_{k}^{i}=42$ then $\int _{\pi }^{c_{ji}}V_{mn}\otimes e^{\alpha }dx=0$ ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)
I happen to have a very clear understanding of the basic probit regression model, and I am sure I could explain it (teach it) a lot better than is done in the current probit model article. About heterogeneity, and/or about endogenous explanatory variables, I could not do that. I am more in the category of wishing that this article were far better/clearer than it is, so that I could understand it properly. This article should be written at level comprehensible to someone who has taken coursework about equivalent to that required for a masters degree in statistics, I think. Perhaps this article should be split into different topics, or revamped considerably to cover multiple refinements of the basic probit model including heterogeneity of errors, endogeneity, more variations. I cannot say that editor Bender235 is wrong, in their estimation that the variation(s) addressed in this article are relatively obscure. But I think the solution would be to revise and to expand this, and re-title it as appropriate. Probably there should be one article (this article should be revised to become) on variations upon the basic probit regression model. Sticking to binary responses, setting aside extension of the basic model to multiple levels of responses. --Doncram (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would anyone with experience in stats or econometrics be willing to put in the time to clean this up so it might be merged, e.g. to probit model? There's also Binary response model with continuous endogenous explanatory variables, which suffers the same difficulties as this page: too obscurely written even for people who know math, and devoted to a case of narrow scope. XOR'easter (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable to ask if someone with more experience than I have, whether they could fix up this article better. As i explain in comments above and below, I don't think this should ever be merged into a lower-level article on the basic probit regression model. --Doncram (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think this article fails a number of points on
WP:UNDUE) of Probit model. FOARP (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

FOARP has valid complaints about the article, which would properly be addressed by editing the article, not deleting it, IMO. But it is not redundant or POV in any way, relative to the basic probit model. --Doncram (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - In the previous discussion, another user doncram indicated that it would be inappropriate to merge this article with probit model. If that's true, then can this doncram (or anyone else with expertise) provide a clarification for why the content could not be included as a subsection of that article? The article itself is not especially long so it's not a space issue , but if there's a technical reason why presenting this information as a separate subsection under that main heading is inappropriate then it may be best to not merge it and to leave it as a standalone article as now with an explanation for why it's kept separate documented in the talk page. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's easy. This article cannot be merged to the probit model article because this topic is too complicated. The "probit model" article actually should be simpler than it is. For example, it should have graphics explaining the model much more clearly (I wish i could easily provide those... I could hand-sketch what is needed, but I currently can't generate good 3-D graphics). It probably should have one or maybe two well-chosen example applications. Mainly, it should be written to be accessible to persons having a basic understanding of statistics, such as from just one statistics course in college or just one "Data and statistics" type course in business school, say. It should clearly lay out the idea of probit regression following from a few "simple" assumptions. The ideas of heterogeneity and endogeneity are far, far, far too much for the first, introductory article about probit regression.

If this article were merged with the probit model article, then the only sensible options, for editors of that article, would be to split the merged material right back out again, or entirely delete it all. --Doncram (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. With that additional context, it does seem logical to keep this article as it is and, probably on the talk page, discuss trimming it down so that it is at the appropriate level of language. It might also be useful to have an external link pointing to this article in probit model, similar to how we have related articles point to each other. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. :) Yes, a "See also" type link at the bottom of that page is appropriate. (It wouldn't be labelled an "External link", because those go to locations outside of Wikipedia.)

Further, in the basic probit model article there is a section "Performance under misspecification" which should be removed from there, and put into a more advanced-level article. I suppose that heterogeneity and endogeneity are special cases of misspecification of the basic probit model. I think this article should be modified to cover a number of variations, each really being ways to address various misspecifications of the basic probit model. User:bender235 somewhere above suggests, perhaps facetiously, something about covering "unbalanced panel with interaction terms" stuff; maybe that is one more type of thing to be covered as a variation? Also the normality of distribution of errors is a strong assumption which should be relaxed; the advanced article should at least suggest how assuming heavier-tailed distributions is probably almost always better (because in any real application there are no doubt unmeasured, omitted explanatory variables, which in effect cause greater variation in outcome than would be expected in the simple model) and can actually be easily addressed... logit regression is one alternative different only in this way. Assuming Cauchy/other stable distribution function are options, maybe adding one or two more parameters to be estimated. Offhand, I am not sure how to rank the importance of the various variations. --Doncram (talk)
Just for the record, because it seems this was misunderstood: I suggested "something about covering "unbalanced panel with interaction terms" stuff" as a joke. I do not want this kind of an article. Neither do I want iPhone 11 in yellow and with 256 GB storage. --bender235 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, the basic probit model article should not have to cover Berkson's whatever and Gibbs sampling, which I think might both be considered computational/solution aspects. Computation/solution method stuff should probably be covered in a different advanced-level article. About computation, the basic article should include just the assertion that the maximum likelihood surface is convex and has just one maximum to be found (i.e., under the assumptions of the probit model, for any one data set there is just one "best-fitting" set of coefficient estimates, and these can be found by a simple search process ...there are no local maxima to worry about), and brief suggestion of one simple approach to finding way to the maximum should be given there. --Doncram (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way way too niche. All the creations ought be nuked per User_talk:Carolineneil#Single_purpose_account_for_experiment_on_Wikipedia:_should_be_banned and the subsequent block. ∯WBG^converse 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It's clear that some of the contributors to this discussion lack subject matter expertise on this topic, but to clarify this topic cannot be comfortably folded into probit model, though it is notable enough to support a standalone article. 107.77.203.224 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have expertise in this area, but as FOARP correctly pointed out, Wikipedia is not a textbook. We discuss topics like the probit model for a general audience, and leave specializations like Probit model for panel data with heterogeneity and endogenous explanatory variables for textbooks. --bender235 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per bender235.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-encyclopedic. If the base article needs to be easy to understand, so does this. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 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 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ace & Son

Ace & Son (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:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, source searches are providing very little content about this company in general, even in non-reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 22 October 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) 05:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3G Studios

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/3G Studios

Articles for deletion/3G Studios (2nd nomination)

3G Studios (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:RS), and therefore do not contribute to notability, and source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The most I can find in reliable sources is the firm hiring Drew Markham as president and firing him not eight months thereafter.[3][4][5] Other sources include "3G developed X / partnered with Y" (example), but all in all, nothing about this company satisfies
✉) 07:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as it fails to meet
WP:GNG. Spy-cicle (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I agree with
WP:GNG. Tiger Trek (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - just doesn't seem to pass
WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete- per above. Timur9008 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and NCORP.
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 20 October 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 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Stone Atchison

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

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

Nothing on Newspapers.com, American Radio History, etc. Sources are entirely primary. Billboard has nothing on the guy. No charted singles, only a passing mention in Record World, Passingly mentioned in some articles on Elvis, but most of this is just other people quoting him. Seems to be an utter failure of
WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He appears to have a section in the book I Am Elvis: A Guide to Elvis Impersonators devoted to him ([6]), although how detailed it is or how good it is as a source I couldn't say. --Michig (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 19 October 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 Tool Box. Tone 09:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer

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

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

Not a valid disambig since both refer to the same song. (It was also the B-side to "
WP:NSONGS
, so there's no way this could be fleshed out into an article. Since neither album seems a more valid redirect target than the other (and again, since there's a third version as well), there's really nothing to do here except deletion.
(also yes, I am very much aware of the irony of this nomination... where did you think my username came from?) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: redirects from songs to album articles are common: here we need a dab page because it's on two albums. PamD 09:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per
wp:ONEOTHER, wouldn’t a redirect (to the original) and hat note do the job? (Note there were 4 entries until cross-namespace links to WP and User: space were removed, which I feel should stay removed). –xeno^talk 09:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: No need for a disambig page for two songs (that are the same song), both of which are
unnotable themselves. Redirect to Aaron Tippin's album and leave a hat note. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I agree with Darth above. It seems unnecessary to have this page when both versions of the song are non-notable. The article for Tippin's album already mentions that the song was covered by Barbara Mandrell and that is sufficient for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tool Box as it could be a viable search term. I have changed my vote per Shhhnotsoloud's comment below. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tool Box where the other use is explained. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tool Box as suggested above. That should help anyone looking for the song, not the person. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 12:18, 21 October 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.

^ https://soundcity.tv/exclusive/idyl-timi-dakolo-or-timaya-your-favourite-artists-from-bayelsa/

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_17&oldid=1142613068"~~

[1] ttps://soundcity.tv/exclusive/idyl-timi-dakolo-or-timaya-your-favourite-artists-from-bayelsa/

[1]