Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 October	26 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 keep. Tone 12:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pita Pit

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

As written, fails

significant, relating only to franchise openings, franchise closures, and corporate philanthropy (i.e., donations). Doug Mehus (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Going to err on the side of a weak keep for the time being. It's a big franchise. I'm searching for sources now, and while I haven't found a whole lot of solid in depth coverage, the intense amount of lesser coverage combined with the size of the company makes me feel pretty confident the sources exist. I'll take another look tomorrow. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any. Remember, sources have to provide

non-notable credit union centrals like Central 1 Credit Union and Concentra Bank that, together, have more than $100 billion in assets under management. You should also try and avoid !voting without having found sufficient sources. Recommend changing that to a Comment. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - There is a lot of routine coverage about stores opening or closing in specific locations so it can be difficult to pick out the coverage. Here are some. Coverage about international expansion. Their partnership with a pot grower to get into the cannabis business. Their expansion into parts of India. The customer backlash in Australia over one of their menu offerings. Growth in a local market. As an example in a book about franchising. That is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet
notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment regarding Whpg's sources: Franchisee-related and business-related expansion into new markets (whether geographic or business line) do not meet the threshold of

not notable. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree. Routine business coverage would be executive hiring announcements ans similar miundance business as usual items. Expansions activities and growth into markets is not routine coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 1 November 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SALt lamp

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

Item may not meet

ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Fixed the article with its sources. Is it notable enough to be in Wikipedia? That's up for evaluators to decide. I just edited with my very limited Wikipedia editing skills.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ping me) 15:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Tyw7 True. It was mentioned only once during the visit of Obama in the Philippines during a talk in a Climate Change discussion and that's all. I checked how it works and I even found out the saltwater acts as the electrolyte and not as the power source. I'm not really good with electronics though so I do not really understand how the mere presence of saltwater in the lamp makes it a saltwater lamp. Sorry, I digressed.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

ping me) 23:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - meets
WP:GNG easily. I mean, to start with, Obama held an event with the inventor, talking about this (mentioned in the New York times and Mother Jones), but also Huffington Post, Haaretz, ABS-CBN, ABS-CBN, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asian Scientist, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippine Primer, Philstar, The Straits Times... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Rhododendrites, well the New York Times article only start about the said election about halfway through and only in 3 paragraphs. It just say Obama held a panel with the said inventor.

Mother Jones is a blog.

Huffpost and ABS-CBN seem legit. --

ping me) 09:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

It's true that the NYT article only talks about this in a relatively small aprt of the article. Hence why I said "mentioned in" before listing the more substantial sources. Just a note on Mother Jones, though. Being a blog doesn't disqualify something. See, for example, the Mother Jones entry at

WP:RSP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

ping me) 17:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm looking at this AfD and I'm curious to hear how Tyw7 justifies seeing a "particular bias" in the sources just because they're from the Philippines or from Asia. Given the global nature of the English Wikipedia, how is it that a U.S. or UK source is automatically presumed to be "less biased" or "more reliable" than a Philippine or Asian source, just because it happens to be a source the commenter is more intimately familiar with. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ping me) 01:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

By whose standards are you determining if something is "small" and "not significant"? We have Wikipedia articles for events, places and things in the UK that, on the whole, are less significant but exist because those sources are automatically presumed to be "reliable". So just because this happened in the Philippines, we're automatically presuming that this is isn't significant just because local media is the only one covering it? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, new revelations through Rhodendrites show that the article meets the requirements set in the general notability guidelines. Utopes (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:06, 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. Tone 12:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GT Canada Medical Properties REIT

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

As written, failes

WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is some routine business coverage but I cannot find anything significant coverage that would establish WP"notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 30 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 withdrawn. It was obvious that there was a language barrier here. If one possibly

(non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Saeid Bayat

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

Apart from the constant repurposing and possible hoaxing, no significant coverage can be found for this person. Player only scored once during his pro career and was most likely not a part of any starting lineup. Fails

WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For now. Language barrier, so the AfD process needs to be proper - we cannot claim they fail GNG without searching Persian/Arabic. The article has a translation, which seems right, but it brings up 3,890,000 results - even adding Esteghlal's translated name yields 2,500,000 results. More than likely they aren't all about this person but we shouldn't assume. NFOOTY passed, though that needs verifying. A quick search with the supposed translation brings up [1] which suggests (difficult to know for sure, could be a different player... which would prove the language barrier.) he spent time in prison, making more sources likely.
talk) 00:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep @
WP:FOOTY. [2] SportingFlyer T·C 13:02, 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Walk

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

No significant coverage about the series. All sources on the current article are primary. Fails

WP:NTV. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks wp:rs. I cannot find any news on this in Google. The background section was copied from a Press Release. I removed it. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
WP:GNG on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No information except from primary sources. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 19:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Agreed no significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate !vote. User already voted above. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:02, 31 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) 10:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Palan

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

Straight forward COI SPA self-promotion of non-notable subject Rayman60 (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no significant coverage of him among the independent sources cited in the article nor those that I find online. Largoplazo (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a few mentions of some of his projects in the media, but no coverage of the person. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment similarly to the AfD on Rami Ranger, the subject in question has an MBE which may be a sign of notability. --RaviC (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the source says he was nominated for an MBE, but no evidence he was in fact awarded it. Do the PM and HM the Queen rubber stamp it? Bearian (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, noms almost always lead to awards to the extent they're used synonymously. I think we can safely assume that the nom led to the award. That said, I know people who've had awards and wouldn't pass WP:GNG. The award doesn't automatically confer notability, and I feel despite the award, the subject is still below the in-depth coverage required to justify a page through GNG Rayman60 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is self-promotional and not notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:26, 1 November 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jostin Francis

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

Only one article with him as major figure; rest of online articles I found only gave him passing mentions. All other sources are YouTube (which would be primary and not third-party) and Facebook. From

^{(open talk page)} 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

^{(open talk page)} 20:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - there's a wall of citations but
no substance. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep since GNG seems to be satisfied now. [3] [4][5][6][7][8][9] Darsana.vinod (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Although, quite notable as got coverage in several RS. But that is too thin to pass
want to talk? 03:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is really improved from beginning.Considering
WP:GNG this article is eligible.It is notable in multiple criteria. As a Notable Psychiatrist [[10]][[11]][[12]
]

[[13]] he is famous for various presentations and public speeches done in Freethinkers Forum and many rational science groups of Kerala [[14]][[15]] Medical speaches in different platforms [[16]][[17]][[18]][[19]][[20]] [[21]]Darsana.vinod (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 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 01:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

André, the Kid

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

non notable musician, failing

WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:GNG. He seems to be a run of the mil DJ. There's no evidence he passes our standards for either musicians specifically (such as a national tour), nor general notability. Sources are unreliable. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unless there can be some basic showing of independent, reliable sources to establish notability (there are non presently in the article and my searches have thus far turned up nothing that meets our
WP:NMUSIC. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:32, 31 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. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Society of Celts

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

I found no significant coverage per

WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -
run of the mill charity. Bearian (talk) 13:28, 30 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) 16:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Real Murcia season

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

It does not meet

WP:NFOOTY as Real Murcia does not play a fully professional league. Asturkian (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Fails
WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete both per
WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 15:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete no evidence of notability per NSEASONS/GNG. Giant Snowman 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routine lower league coverage only. Fails
WP:GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:09, 30 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 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Play characters

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

This is another excessively long, unsourced wall of fancruft that better belongs on Wikia. Reyk _YO! 16:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. On one hand it's a content fork from the original article that would be too big to merge, as is shown in this article's first edit. On the other hand the article's condition is hideous - just ask the episodes that are externally-linked in the body. ミラ P 02:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is really no sourced information here, thus negating the need to merge anywhere. Likewise, I was unable to find any sources that would indicate that this vast collection of minor "characters" is at all notable. This is just an
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of overly detailed cruft. Most, if not all, of these entries are completely non-notable "once, Adam dressed up as *insert random character*" style entries that have no encyclopedic value. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The article has exactly one source - that links to a forum post. I couldn't find significant, independent coverage on the set of characters for the article to comply with GNG. The article is thus
original research in its entirety. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 1 November 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) 16:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula Selvarajah

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

Fails

WP:GNG. I tagged the article as A7 but it was decline with a suggestion to try a redirect, but I can't find any article where she is mentioned. Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The Durham College source in the article notes "Currently: Columnist for CBC Radio and producer for Metro Morning". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being producer of a radio show is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to clear
WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the references here are an alumni profile on the self-published website of her own alma mater and a staff profile on the website of her employer, which means they aren't independent or notability-supporting sources. She has to be the subject (not the author) of media coverage about her to clear GNG, but that's not what these sources are. To be fair, I'll note that I literally woke up this very morning to Manjula Selvarajah guest-hosting the weekend morning program on my local CBC station, but even having been heard as a listener-facing radio host is still not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about her (although it probably does explain why this article suddenly happened yesterday.) I will also note that even Nana aba Duncan, the regular host Selvarajah was subbing for, doesn't have a Wikipedia article yet either, because Duncan has also not yet been the subject of enough reliable source media coverage about her to clear the GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No article about her in the media. No independent sources. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 19:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:OUTCOMES. There's not a lot of coverage about the subject. Being a producer is a run of the mill career, and we generally delete such articles, absent clear notability on air. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 30 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) 16:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional planets by medium

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

Planets in science fiction exists, which has a redirect from "List of fictional planets." I don't know if the state of that other article should remain as-is, but its presence makes this redundant. TTN (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notwithstanding what we should do with various fictional planet lists, or the
planets in science fiction primary article, this list is pretty ill-conceived. For one thing, open-ended lists like this are rarely a good idea because they're maintenance nightmares that can't be complete and lead to either acrimonious arguments on inclusion criteria or else just fantastic amounts of bloat. But more concerning here is that we don't categorize content by medium like this. How could we? Doctor Who is a TV franchise first, I suppose, but also sports a series of books and radio programs. Warcraft? A video game, but also a movie (as much as I guess Blizzard would prefer we overlooked it...). And so forth. This thing dates back to 2006, and the project had very different ideas about lists and list inclusion then. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Squeamish. This looks like a maintenance nightmare. --Masem (t) 16:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Squeamish. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Just because it exists doesn't mean it's notable"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete List is superfluous.TH1980 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't provide much information therefore not notable. Barca (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the arguments advanced above, as well as various other
WP:WWIN principles regarding content built upon unwieldy cross-categorizations. Snow ^{let's rap} 18:48, 31 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 redirect. DrKay (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governors Bank of Mozambique

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

This simply seems unnecessary; the list itself is easily short enough to be contained in the article on the Central Bank of Mozambique. As William of Ockham is always saying, posit no unnecessary entities. TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bank of Mozambique. Target article already contains this short list. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Unclear why the creator felt it needed to be on a separate page... Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 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. Tone 19:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SDO s45 Transfer between associated bodies corporate

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

It is an extremely narrow interest topic that wikipedia is not a guide to taxation. The article lack of citation, and probably you never find this topic on newspaper. Probably someone from law firm or accountant firm can write a book about the concept, but it is very not likely passing

WP:GNG for that Matthew hk (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article title is a bad title: it should read Stamp Duty Ordinance section 45: Relief in case of conveyance from one associated body corporate to another. Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stamp Duty Ordinance. Not enough details for a standalone article. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Matthew hk. I can't find any reliable source about SDO s45 Transfer between associated bodies corporate. Secondly, this article is unsourced and inappropriate for merge into Stamp Duty Ordinance. --SCP-2000 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had to admit i haven't done all the step in

WP:BEFORE, but despite i found RS, it seem it still gated by professional knowledge on the subject and i doubt any general interest as an encyclopedic entry. The source i found: "China: Hong Kong group stamp duty court challenge and Chinese amendment to income tax on lump-sum termination payments" in International Tax Review In the recent Arrowtown Assets Ltd v Commissioner of Estate Duty (ESD) case, the judge dismissed the taxpayer's appeal against CED's refusal to grant group stamp duty relief under section 45 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance. The decision found that, to be entitled to the relief, the following conditions must be satisfied: [omitted] Matthew hk (talk) 07:30, 30 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 19:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid number

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

Topic doesn't meet

WP:GNG. There's been quite a bit of discussion on the matter already: see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2019 October 19#Linear algebra and the article's talk page. The quick version is that this is nothing but the standard ring of 2x2 real matrices, dressed up with a new name, and added here by the author of a 2018 paper in which he introduced the idea – an idea which has failed to gain sufficient attention for a Wikipedia article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. This is a new name for a known thing, and it does not have the historical cred or demonstrated practical utility that would justify having an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 28 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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waldemar Tatarczuk

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

Performance artist, likely failing

WP:INTERVIEW; another interview or two in more niche Polish outlets like [23]. No awards or in-depth coverage that's not an interview. No article on the highly inclusive pl wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thanks for spotting this. We have plenty of articles on non-notable artists, some of them even qualify as self-promotion.--Darwinek (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found this on a showing at a museum, and this collection, as well as this residency, and this in the book, Globalizing East European Art Histories: Past and Present. That was from a superficial search. In it's present state the article needs much improvement. Netherzone (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found enough online to convince me that he meets
WP:GNG. Article needs alot of improvement, but that is not cause for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 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. Tone 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Scanlon

)

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

The previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Scanlon was in 2008, the article refers to things in 2012 so G4 deletion does not apply, and I'm replacing the speedy deletion process with an AFD. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was previously deleted by a deletion discussion in 2008. None of the sources included as references in the new version of the article are
general notability guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:23, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inkthis

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

This article was created in 2007 by a COI editor and deleted as promotional. It then seems to have been recreated. According to the exhibition’s own website it only ran three times, and while there are a few pieces of coverage it does not look to me like sustained coverage and I’m not sure about the independence of all the sources. Overall I don’t think the topic is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional article created by an SPA only interested in writing about Inkthis and Brett Wilkinson, the founder of Inkthis. Article is simply advertising and it does not meet encyclopedia standards for notability. Netherzone (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in the article that would suggest notability is met. I would additionally note that the article says this "is an annual series of events and exhibitions" implying it is ongoing, but mentions nothing after 2008 and the main focus seems to be 2007. Dunarc (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:SIGCOV. There was very little coverage in 2007-2008, and unlikely to have more in the near future, absent some participant sudden becoming famous. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 30 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) 13:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast-style bagel

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

After researching this topic, it does not quite meet

WP:GNG, in terms of lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article. See the article's talk page for additional concerns that have been expressed about the topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete It's misleading, as most sources use "East Coast-style" to describe bagels associated with, primarily, Jewish bakeries in New York and elsewhere in the eastern United States, and the nostalgia that goes along with those, not to a particular combination of sourdough and boiling with honey employed by one bakery in Halifax. Outside of publicity and trivial local coverage for that bakery and sources that appear to be cribbing their definitions from here, there's nearly no coverage of this term in association with bagels of the sort described by the article. Fails
WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dual selective merge to
New York-style bagel and Montreal-style bagel by adding the following sentence or two (modified from the article page in question) to describe the nuanced differences in the Canadian East Coast-style bagel, "a variant of the New York-style bagel and Montreal-style bagel exists on the Canadian East Coast except that it is made with sourdough that uses locally sourced wild yeasts.[1] This Canadian East Coast-style bagel is not as chewy and fluffy, nor as salty as the New York-style bagel, and is less dense, doughy and sweet than a Montreal-style bagel.[2][3][4]," and then redirect East Coast-style bagel to either of the two pages (one with higher page views, potentially) or to a dab page. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per @StonyBrook:'s comment below re: the sourdough variation being written in the subhead of the Bagel article, with the caveat to recommending future editors of the Bagel article add a notation that this variation is common in Atlantic Canada (chiefly, Nova Scotia). Agree with @Largoplazo: that it is misleading/confusing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some limited sourcing, but this is not a notable enough topic for a standalone article. The current sub-head in the Bagel article covers this short topic well for now. Also agree with Largoplazo that the title is misleading due to confusion with the East Coast of the U.S. StonyBrook (talk) 00:31, 28 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. Tone 12:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WPXB-LD

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

Very low power station which fails

WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: even if it fails WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST, I would still keep WPXB-LD because I made this. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 11:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two rationales. First, the FCC has licensed WPXB-LD as a low-power television station, rather than as a television translator station. It's a small distinction, but it generally means it's considered to originate its own programming, even if that programming is overwhelmingly the Daystar network feed. That would usually allow it to pass

WP:BROADCAST. Second, WPXB-LD hasn't always been a Daystar affiliate, which means that there's a history that can be told – some flesh for the bones, as it were. Mlaffs (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep per Mlaffs' explanation; better here to keep as an article than as a redirect to the Daystar affiliate list when it does have history before that with Pax/Ion. chatter) 00:57, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn and no commenters had supported deletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Çolak

Adnan Çolak (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; falls
WP:PERPETRATOR
. I don't think we should have an article about a criminal who is only known in Turkey. I don't even think he is a well-known criminal in Turkey because his crimes are not notable. He rapied and killed women who are older than 65 years. This has happened in the U.S and other countries although the age is different. Jeffrey Epstein for example is a notable figure but this is definitely nothing comparing to Jeffrey Epstein. SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC) brown text added at 14:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does
WP:CRIMINAL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

My bad. I wanted to say that he is not a well-known criminal. I didn't know what policy I should refer to. Thanks for the links. I don't think that his crimes makes him notable. In the places there has been mass shootings and more people have died yet we don't make articles about criminals. Also most of the sources about him are from Turkish language and even the title of the article is in Turkish language which is odd.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given he's Turkish, why on earth is it odd? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A serial killer who murdered eleven people. Of course he's notable. Would a serial killer in the UK or US be deleted? Of course they wouldn't. And also, he killed old people so he's not notable? What?! Nonsensical nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp, almost all the sources are in Turkish language. He is only notable in Turkey. His notablity is all about his crimes. Also If we don't create articles about pornsters then why would we create articles about rapists.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Foreign-language sources are just as valid as English-language sources. So what? This is English-language Wikipedia; that doesn't mean we're not interested in subjects from non-English-speaking countries. Of course it is; he's a criminal.
John Reginald Christie isn't notable for anything else either, but nobody would sensibly suggest we wouldn't have an article on him! We do have articles on pornstars; just not on very minor ones. A serial killer who murders eleven people is not a minor criminal! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well. Then why don't we have an article about Brenton Harrison Tarrant who who shot 51 people?. The point is that there is nothing about Adnan that is notable except that he had committed crimes killing eleven women. I think if there is a lot of coverage in English news media then that's okay but there are almost no coverage from major English news, only Turkish news and some English websites that anyone can create.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do. It's called Christchurch mosque shootings! There is nothing notable about most serial killers except that they committed crimes! That's what they're notable for. Once again, it doesn't need English coverage. It just needs coverage. Sources don't need to be in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination . I think I need to open a proposal a new policy to remove biographic articles of people who are notable only committing crimes.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack the Ripper, Hawley Harvey Crippen, Fred West, Peter Kürten, Sirhan Sirhan... Good luck with that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:40, 30 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. Tone 19:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Measures (audio drama)

Counter-Measures (audio drama) (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)

Was a redirect to
WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Re-direct to List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish. There are no secondary sources cited, no evidence of notability, this shouldn't be an article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redratify and possibly move protect. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator noteIt seems like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) (2nd nomination) was accidentally created at the same time as this discussion. I've deleted the other page as a duplicate and in order to keep it free for any future deletion nomination. I've moved the sole !vote by Kirbanzo over; in case you don't want it/want to change it, you can edit it here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~unless someone can find some good reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded upon past just basic episode tables, including production information and reviews from multiple secondary sources. Do the recent updates satisfy your requirements, @Bondegezou, Kirbanzo, and Atlantic306:? -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some work on the article. Most of those sources are either not independent or fail
WP:GNG and would be better merged back into List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And RadioTimes? That's been considered a very reliable source for years, and is currently used in over 4,000 articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the Radio Times. (Apologies: I had misunderstood how that citation was being used here.) That's three reliable sources, so it meets minimum
WP:GNG. I think redirect to List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish would still be a neater way of covering the content (that content that can be reliably sourced). But you can read that as a "weak re-direct" given the improvements. Bondegezou (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep moved from redirect to keep as the article has been significantly improved with additional referenced content with reviews and coverage in multiple sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons)

Geryon (Dungeons & Dragons) (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 topic TTN (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to
~~List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons or else~~ Delete. While I'm fairly willing to go to bat for the deity list as being relevant (with religion in the game being a topic that has attracted out-of-universe attention), I'm ... less convinced that the obvious merge target here is one that's going to be around for the long term. Essentially, if consensus is that the target list is just going to be the next thing listed for deletion, there's little motivation to kick this can down the road. If there's some reason for optimism (I know that lists of characters in fictional settings don't have a well-defined notability demarcation at the moment), then it's appropriate to do a pared-down merge, redirect, and call it a day. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've looked over the other articles in this topic space, and amended my opinion accordingly. I do think there's enough specific out-of-universe RS to argue that the D&D "devil" as a category is iconic and worth having an article for. But we have that article, at
List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons is too much inside baseball to warrant a spinoff list. And redirects are cheap, but I don't think they're cheap enough to be necessary here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable D&D version of a mythological figure. There are no reliable, secondary sources that discuss this particular version of the being in any way the shows notability. I would recommend against merging to the
List of named devils in Dungeons & Dragons, as that target has the exact same issues present in this article, only multiplied by 52. Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and Rorshacma.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No demonstration of notability as established by coverage in reliable, independent and secondary sources, and would fail an
WP:WWIN: Wikipedia is not meant to mirror (or even summarize) D&D's own commercial manuals for the game. And not for nothing, but the article (like most of the many hundreds of other articles that were created in the early 2000s in an attempt to replicate D&D's "Monster Manuals") flagrantly uses a copyrighted image from one of those commercial works, in clear violation of our WP:image use policy; there should be an additional effort to have said image deleted as well, though it may be worth waiting until after this discussion closes first, to simplify matters. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:32, 31 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.
WP:GOOGLEHITS and undergrad papers are not accepted as supporting notability, so comments based on those are discounted. General arguments about notability policies should be taken to a broader forum. RL0919 (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yugoloth

Yugoloth (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 topic TTN (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm more favorably inclined to some of this material than some other editors. And, unquestionably, Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons is a notable topic. That doesn't mean that every bit-player category of creature deserves breakout examination in this project. Sorry, yugoloths. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlike a lot of the other D&D monsters that have come up on AFD, this one has considerably more primary sources. Unfortunately, primary sources do not help establish notability, and reliable secondary sources are seemingly non-existent. There are none present currently in the article, and doing some searches only brings up more primary sources only. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple Google search for the word yugoloth brings up a myriad of secondary sources, including even Youtube videos. Notability established. Sciovore (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to brush up on WP:Reliable sources. None of those google results qualify. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to point some out. You may also not understand what's required from sources if you're mentioning Youtube. TTN (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a Google search producing a myriad of topically pertinent results is somehow not considered a measure of notability indicates a flaw in Wikipedia's attempts to define policy on notability. Wikipedia policy confuses notability versus veracity; source reliability is pertinent to veracity, but source reliability has little to nothing to do with notability, which is simply a measure of cultural significance/impact, not a measure of veracity or reliability. Wikipedia's confused concept of notability needs amending. Sciovore (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is determined by quality secondary sources with significant coverage on the topic, significant meaning real world information when pertaining to fiction. You're welcome to disagree and take it to relevant policy/guideline talk pages, but that simply means you're ignoring
WP:WAF. If you cannot provide any sources, then you don't have an actual policy backed argument. TTN (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The non-fan source which is Google.com itself does provide real-world machine-generated information regarding the cultural significance of yugoloths/daemons, and there is the academic thesis on censorship which explicitly cites D&D daemons, but...

It looks like bossman
his for-profit Fandom.com site. Sciovore (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
An undergrad's school paper that he put up on his personal Tripod site is hardly an "academic thesis", and its ridiculously disingenuous to try to claim it is. Rorshacma (talk) 14:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "school paper" submitted for a university degree (read: thesis) is by definition an academic thesis. The fact that you are attempting to gaslight that an academic thesis is somehow not an academic thesis reveals your lack of encyclopedic neutrality here. Sciovore (talk) 09:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is thoroughly irrelevant here. A non-published, undergrad thesis is not a
WP:RS
status if it is a doctoral thesis--and even then only under certain very specific circumstances and with significant caveats and restrictions. Furthermore, even if you did have a genuine thesis here, it would need to do more than incidentally mention the topic: you need in-depth discussion of the article's topic in order for a source to function in support of notability. Lastly, even if this was doctoral thesis, and it was published, and it did discuss the topic at length, as a thesis it would be incapable of carrying a determination of notability on its own weight: you'd still need other secondary, reliable, independent sources.

I'm sorry, but as others have already told you above, if you feel this project's notability standards should be differently formulated, there are discussion spaces where you can share that perspective and try to move the needle. However, disagreeing with policy as a representation of community consensus on an editorial issue does not obviate you from having the conform to said consensus and said policies. You have been told by at least three editors so far that you need to read
WP:RS, and I highly recommend you do that before commenting further, because at present your arguments run quite contrary to those very basic editorial standards. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Again, disagree all you like on the relevant talk pages, but that's irrelevant to current guidelines and policies. Also, with that methodology, you'd be opening the site up to literally millions of articles on the smallest minutia of the most trivial works of fiction. TTN (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some Google searches produce more pertinent results than others, so a threshold could be defined to differentiate a significant number of pertinent results versus insufficient results, and that would prevent the millions of trivial articles. Sciovore (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just not how the process works here. What you are suggesting does not meet this community's editorial standards, and whether you have faith that it is the case or not, said community hasn't arrived at those standards arbitrarily: there are many, many complex and important reasons why we do not allow individual editors to decide for themselves what a "pertinent" source is, utilizing their own idiosyncratic, subjective standards, but instead use the RS model. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a cursory
WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Sciovore. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Yugo of D&D deities. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG (in multiple languages). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain how? Rorshacma (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The top nine results for a quick Google search are, respectively:

Article in a fan wiki

Article in a different fan wiki, whose content is copied from the previous fan wiki article

Article in a fan wiki

Wikipedia article

Article in a fan wiki

Youtube video

Youtube video

Self-published strategy guide

D&D Beyond article

None of these qualify as reliable sources. 1, 2, 3 and 5 don't qualify because they are
talk) 13:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete With absolutely no demonstration of independent
WP:RS
standards. That all may have flown (or flown under the radar) in 2004, but our project's standards and notability thresholds have come a long way.

Unfortunately, many hundreds of these articles remain and some day we're going to need an organized effort to remove the vast majority of them en masse (there are some creatures connected to the lore of this game which will qualify as notable in their own right, but they are the extremely rare exception), but in the meantime, its heartening to see that this massive pile of fancruft, copyright violations, and thoroughly
WP:NOT. It's well past time the community made it clear to D&D aficionados that this project is not going to serve as database/back-up (or even extended summary) for the content of the game's own commercial lore books: anyone wishing to engage in such efforts should take them to Wikia or any of the other numerous free and fan-friendly platforms that embrace such archiving of such indiscriminate and exhaustive lore projects. Snow ^{let's rap} 19:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
For what it's worth, I'm working on it. The D&D topic space has a lot of challenges right now. Poorly designed templates, terrible categorization, lots and lots of partial article forks. And that's without addressing the volume of probably-not-notable articles... although more are likely salvageable via careful trims and mergers than might be expected (but yes, an awful lot is likely gonna go). The current state of sourcing just makes it hard to recognize what's what. All of it is more the result of age than ill-intention; much of this was begun before 2010, and in the project's early days, things like
WAF were far less codified. That said, this article? Probably not anything to save. But more broadly, I sure wouldn't object to the AFD regulars giving a (brief!) pause from the D&D nominations while I help get things better organized over there. It's a big job. Deferred maintenance sucks. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Well I for one will express my gratitude for your hard work on the matter: I've been saying for years that we really need to put together a serious task force to address this issue holistically, rather than the piece-meal manner in which we have to date. If you should ever raise the issue in a community space, please feel encouraged to ping me to the discussion. My own take on the question of how of the articles may be salvaged is that it will probably end up being a very small fraction of the non-notable articles that exist in the subject area at present. Certainly there are certain creatures which came about exclusively as a consequence of the game and its associated franchises and which have achieved a degree of pop culture permeation that extends beyond super fans of the game itself: creatures like the 'Beholder' and 'Mind Flayer' which (for whateve reason) have become popular enough to be discussed in at least a handful of independent reliable sources. But I'm going to guess that these are the extreme rarity--though of course every article will have to be evaluated independently in that regard.

But it's really the massive list articles that are going to represent the most pitched battles between the community of regular editors and the D&D fans who have utilized this encyclopedia as a platform to create a reference corpus that replicates hundreds of pages of material from D&D's commercial works, only with Wikilinks. Those articles mostly have no more truly reliable sources than does this one (which is to say, absolutely zero) and they almost always run afoul of some combination of
WP:VPP
discussion on this matter: just look at how much effort was needed when the community decided to clean up just a few fancrufty areas of pro wrestling articles--and those articles were/are nowhere near as bad, undersourced, or bloated as this area is.

Of course, as with the pro wrestling area, in time we should be able to make headway with the cooperation of editors who are capable of threading the needle between their fan's devotion to the game and understanding that this project is not meant to be a fan compendium of just any random piece of lore or gameplay minutia, and who will work with the rank and file editors here to preserve and augment that content which actually does constitute notable articles. And while we will have to keep an open mind for each and every AfD determination, I'll frankly be gobsmacked if it turns out that more than one in a hundred of the thousands of current D&D articles on en.Wikipedia turns out to be compliant with our policies or even can be salvaged with additional sources. I think the vast, vast majority of the content is non-notable trivia. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had already come to the conclusion that
his for-profit Wikia/Fandom sites. Sciovore (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Suggesting that removing D&D content is purely for profit motive makes no sense when said content is allowed on Wikipedia as well as long as it fulfills the notability criteria. Wikipedia was always meant to be a general encyclopedia and not a fan-centric hub for miscellaneous trivia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 1 November 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 12:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Pashayev

Royal Pashayev (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)

Doesn't meet notability criterias
talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Does not meet criteria for notability including
WP:SELFPROMOTE, or with a few other artists he worked with, or a band he was in, H.O.S.T.. The band article should probably also be deleted. Netherzone (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, this is
WP:SELFPROMOTE, as User:Netherzone states.Strandvue (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Self-promotional hype, not encyclopedic. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I noticed this: https://www.azernews.az/culture/131770.html which reports on a rather mundane event: someone was hired as one of Google's many art directors. Vexations (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet notability criterias, this is
WP:SELFPROMOTE. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:24, 28 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 12:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avaz Hasanov

Avaz Hasanov (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-encyclopedic, advertisement, undersourced
talk) 09:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 09:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and
notability at all. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, non-encyclopedic, advertisement and fails
WP:TNT. --SalmanZ (talk) 00:49, 1 November 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 12:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Maharjan

Narendra Maharjan (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)

Only mere mentions like "produced by Narendra Maharjan" in the routine coverage of press releases from films, not otherwise taken any note of. Non-notable. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
significant coverage of notability, which is absent here. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 30 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 List of recurring The Simpsons characters. Tone 12:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cletus Spuckler

Cletus Spuckler (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)

Sure, main Simpsons cast is notable, but minor characters like this?
WP:BEFORE fails to find anything outside of the expected mentions in passing, limited to show in-universe biographical summaries and some memes. No evidence of in-depth coverage as related to real world significance. But this deserves an AfD not a prod because he gets at least some decent one liners, ex dissertation
mentioning that "The buck-toothed character Cletus Spuckler on The Simpsons is a fairly accurate amalgam of the many stereotypes of white-trashdom.", and three or so sentences in Jonathan Lyons (19 November 2015). Comedy for Animators. CRC Press. p. 74.
ISBN 978-1-317-67955-4.. But that's it, I don't think I missed much, maybe 1-2 other decent sources with about a sentence about him. The Simpsons is a major cultural phenomena with a ton of notable subtopics, but I think this character is not one of them - through I am all for rescuing this if only we can dig anything resembling in-depth analysis of this character (and I am sorry, three sentences doesn't cut it, IMHO). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 25 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} 07:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete (EDIT: or Merge per
WP:SIGCOV in my view, even in the sources discussing class/language in the Simpsons this character is only discussed alongside other characters (e.g., sources talk about "Cletus and Brandine") or in brief mentions in listicles, and not specifically about the Cletus character. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The sources talk about "Cletus and Brandine" comment suggests this article could be made into something in the lines of Plankton and Karen. ミラ P 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. ミラ P 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 15:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Current sourcing is insufficient. TTN (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:40, 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. Tone 12:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Cornaboyz

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

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

Unsourced article about a
non-notable production team whose name is spelled at least three different ways in the text. Contested prod. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant find any reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 1 November 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 12:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best Frenz Forever

Best Frenz Forever (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. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry to say, Nepal is poor in mass media and digital field. I've added IMDb id and did minor changes too. References looks good to me. To me, It's notable enough to keep. Kind regards, —
talk) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Tulsi Bhagat, I am sorry but that's simply not good enough, not for a commercial product released in the last decade. Notable movies in the past few years do get at least one or two SIGCOV or few of routine and trivial coverage each, and quite a bit more in non-national/mainstream news sources which do have editorial boards if not a very big journalistic reputation or reach. It either needs to satisfy at least a very lenient interpretation of the GNG requirement (IAR because systemic bias) or it has to show it's significant in some other way (so we can divine that it either has coverage we haven't access to and/or will continue to have coverage/influence in the future). That's for maintaining a stub; to write an actual article, we need those RSes now. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — When searching this film on Google;I could not find anything that would make it notable. CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:02, 28 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 12:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saurav Chaudhary

Saurav Chaudhary (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. Refbombed with non-RS. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've fixed the references and did some changes accordingly. IMO, remarkable person. Kind regards, —
talk) 11:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
AFD. While refbombing was/is a problem, that's not why it's here (it's only an explanation that appearances are deceiving in this case). I am claiming that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. A policy-based "keep" !vote is required to demonstrate that I am mistaken. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 12:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 03:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My apologies. That makes your "Keep" an assertion, not an argument. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, you've far from fixed the sources. filmykhabar.com is openly for promot[ing] Nepali film, filmmakers, actors & financiers and boasts one chief-editor, one technical editor and one editor, lumbinimedia.com is (wut?), likenepal.com is business not journalism, moviemandu.com has a team of four (ok for filling in the blanks, doesn't count towards notability), hariyopati.com boasts one editor, saurahaonline.com boasts an editorial team of 2 (or is that three?), glamournepal.com has one editor and one reporter, and to top it all of cinelahar.com is a personal blog. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Has directed one notable film which is also running at AFD. There is nothing else to show he is notable. There are About 1,380,000 results on Google but there is nothing about him. CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:18, 28 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 12:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shambhu Prasad Yadav

Shambhu Prasad Yadav (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)

Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL, no SIGCOV, only routine coverage related to the election and his official position. He's been mentioned in events surrounding him/his office, but has not himself, as yet, been taken "note" of. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rajbiraj is not large enough to hand an automatic notability freebie to its mayors just because they exist, but this is not written or sourced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar. The actual notability test for mayors is the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive article about their political significance (specific things they did in the mayor's chair, specific projects they spearheaded, etc.), not just the ability to show a handful of the routinely expected local campaign coverage to verify that he exists, and this isn't passing that test. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 29 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.
WP:NPOL applies. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Saroj Sonkar

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

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

WP:SIGCOV. It's possible she might someday be notable as a politician, but not at the moment. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning a
WP:NPOLITICIAN. Enough said. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. As long as the subject is officially elected in a major political position even before official assume the post. As a
talk) 09:12, 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. Should she gain new roles indicating notability, I would be happy to restore this in userspace for further development. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rits Badiani

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

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

No claim to notability in the article, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete this Since web contains only certain resources and I cited them allSHISHIR DUA (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the heading to bolded text, which is the style normally used in these discussions. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are saying that there are no more sources available? That would agree with what I found, or rather didn't find, when I searched for other sources before nominating. The problem is that if there are no reliable sources, there can't be a Wikipedia article.
This is the guidelines for actors, and she does not meet that either, since she has not yet had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to draftspace:
WP:WOOD. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

That might be a good solution but for two reasons: first, there are many thousands of actors who will never actually become notable enough for an encyclopedia, and nothing in the article indicates that this person is an exception. That doesn't mean she won't be, but it would be a bit like creating a draft about a new company just in case it will become notable in the future. Second, the essay you reference (which is neither policy nor a guideline, and which is actually about events rather than people) mentions the "tediousness" of writing a new article – but that would have to be done anyway, since the present article doesn't actually contain anything that would be included in an article about a notable person! The two minor roles in the filmography table might be mentioned in passing in a careers section, but that's all. --bonadea contributions talk 10:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMO she will. Don't kill this one too like
WP:TOOEARLY but there is no harm draftifying. Some editers (including me) would be interested in improving this. And ya that eassy is for events but the reason is same. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete There is merit in moving articles that have extensive work on currently non-notable figures to draft or user space, but this article doesn't really have anything worth saving. Other than some bare role listings, which are readily re-creatable if they do become notable in the future, there isn't any substantial text. As it is, the sources presented clearly fail
WP:NACTOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:34, 2 November 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 12:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar Aloe

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

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

Does not meet
WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 04:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 04:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. subject doesnt have track/song on the top of major music chart and no major achievements in the music industry. Fails GNG and
talk) 09:09, 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) 10:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gian Carlo Petraccaro

Gian Carlo Petraccaro (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)

Promotional and deceptively sourced article on a non
many
sources but looking at them I see junk. A look at some.

Three sources to say he got $300 to attend a conference? Hardly the stuff that belongs in an encyclopedia. And the sources, His name appears on a list in the first. No mention in the other two.

Two sources that tell us that a bank collapsed. No mention of him. They do not verify the claim about him.

A link to a home page to say he was a board member. No mention of him.

This all comes down to being the writer and director of Offside, a film of questionable notability (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Offside (2009 film)). Even that section is bombarded with the same source repeated multiple time, each time with a fake title. Without that film there is no notability. Even with it it currently falls short of NFILMMAKER as that film lacks "significant critical attention". duffbeerforme (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nominated reasoning; and for similar reasons discussed in
WP:NOTE. Cabrils (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No notability independent of the film which has itself already been judged non-notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 2 November 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) 08:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Offside (2009 film)

Offside (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hopelessly promotional and deceptively sourced article on a non
many
sources but looking at them I see junk. Let's look at some.

"Woven through all this is the progress[4] of the Socceroos[5] at the 2006 World Cup finals,[6] with the steady success[7][8] of the Australian team generating enthusiasm[9] amongst Australians[10] who traditionally had no interest in soccer,[11] and increasing inspiration for the boys."

An impressive 8 citations backing up one aspect of the plot of the movie! No. 8 sources dumped in that verify Australia's participation in the World Cup, that don't mention the film, that predate the film. Pure padding, puff.

"The end scenes were shot at Joe’s Kiosk, Henley Beach, which has since become a famous meeting place,[36] for South Australian politicians.[37]"

Once again no mention of Offside. Pure padding, puff. How about

"Music by Ikochi, Fighterpilot, Laura Hill,[38] King Daddy, Pornland, Tracer,[39] Fireballs, Matthew Salleh, Maeder, M Williams, Andrew 'Pange' Niemoeller, The Huckleberry Swedes, Sonic Monkey,[40] and The Secret Game.[41]

No. [24] None of those articles mention Offside.
7 diferent articles in FilmInk? No. It's the one PR piece deceptively presented as seven, each time given a fake title. Same with the 7 from db Mag.
What sources actually are about the film. Local interest puff piece from street press. Industry PR. Not good enough.
How about other sources? Imdb links no critic reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has no page for this film. Search found no good coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely lacking notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I have eviscerated the page in an attempt to show what I think is legitimate content based on reliable sources. Apologies that the remaining 2 sources, that I have added, are not freely available online, but they are from The Adelaide Advertiser newspaper found via a ProQuest media database search. Both articles are very short but are on point, however I don't think they are probably enough to carry the day on their own. I am inclined to agree with the original proposal's reasoning-- the page was very promotional and in my view did not meet
WP:NOTE. Does the page now meet requirements? I don't think so. Delete. Cabrils (talk) 22:09, 28 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. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing

The Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing (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 RS can be found, reliability in question. Doesn't comply with
WP:N. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If I remember, a university is generally considered notable. There might not be a lot of English reliable sources; but it is reasonable to assume there are some Japanese resources, perhaps offline. —- Taku (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above keep votes seem to be arguing essentially from
WP:SIGCOV of this institution - 1 2 3 EDIT: and 4 FOARP (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

First reference is a trivial mention in a overall book about nursing, Second reads like a press release or paid coverage, Third looks like typical coverage talking about international students, so not enough to justify (in my mind) Significant coverage. Hasteur (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understand your objections, what about ref. 4 I've added in? FOARP (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you did a search for the subject, being that I don't have access to the journal I can't judge the content. I'll accept it might be a valid source, however without seeing the content I can't lean either way. For all we know that Journal may accept numerous promotional content papers or it might be a "Pay to play" journal, both of which would disqualify both the journal and the paper. Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: Because there are no references presented we can't
verify the presumed notability. TakuyaMurata is right in that we generally accept universities, but the notability has to be proven with the references. I invite @Necrothesp: to provide references/citations to prove the notability. Open to letting this be sent to Draft or User namespace to correct defects to save it prior to deletion. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see
WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. I'm sure plenty of sources could be found in Japanese, which is not a language I speak. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think
Jovanmilic97 - essays are useful for persuasion and as a way of explaining reasoning. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. Especially if they are widely accepted, as this one is. But it's also common sense. No, I don't think it means there must be sources either, but given this institution is in one of the world's most advanced countries I would be very surprised if there weren't. Once again, the application of common sense is always a good idea. It mystifies me that some editors seem to think that citing "rules" means they don't need to apply it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that a university is generally considered notable. I also agree that there might not be a lot of English reliable sources; but it is reasonable to assume there are both online/offline Japanese resources. In addition, the article serves a very useful purpose. With aging populations throughout the developed world occuring due to the baby boomers and with below replacement levels of fertility in the developed world, there is projected to be a huge shortage of nurses.Knox490 (talk) 17:29, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_25&oldid=1142613020"