Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 December	20 December >

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 Moot. Now moved to template space where it apparently belongs. Sandstein 21:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Major International Pageants Titleholders 2019

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

This isn't an article, it seems to be kind of a template. I'm not sure if there are CSD grounds to delete or whether it should be moved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Template:Major International Pageants Titleholders 2019, can someone please do this (i am not confident enough to do this correctly:)), oh, and speedy close this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved as a (non-admin closure), but I won't close this since someone should review what I did. Also, who ever does review it should probably mark the new redirect for deletion (R2). --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: what does this mean? --DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, tks = thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sandstein: I was the one who moved it (which I hope was okay) but I didn't tag the redirect for deletion because i thought it should be reviewed. Should the redirect be deleted? Its from mainspace to template... Also, I'm sorry for posting this here, but I don't think either of the 2 above suggestions is the right place. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of political catchphrases

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

These are not catchphrases, but quotes, which belong on Wikiquote (where most of the content already resides). For slogans, we have List of political slogans. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are a large number of books that cover/discuss quotes/insults/wit of politicians so a rename may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are quotes; they are not catchphrases. Nor is there any sense of why these particular quotes have been listed togther on this page, whilst thousands of others have not, which for me rules out a rename. Next, the majority of the page content seem to be in languages other than English, which on the en.wikipedia is unhelpful. I see no redeeming features nor any reasonable propsect of turning the page content into something useful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no obvious inclusion/exclusion criteria; not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia; fails WP:LISTN and more suitable for Wikiquote as the nominator says Spiderone 09:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly severely trim. Most of the entries are quotes, and unnotable ones at that, fuddle duddle being a notable exception. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright this collective effort to see one's name in lights. The significant lack of sourcing only compounds the problems. -The Gnome (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's clear consensus that this shouldn't be deleted outright (which is mostly what AfD is about). Opinion is split between keeping as is, renaming, or several possible merges. That can be worked out on the article talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters

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

This article's possible deletion last garnered attention in 2011. Let me say that IMO there is nothing in this article, aside from a single mention relating to the band Gorillaz, that truly stands out. Do we really need a separate article for PPG secondary characters, or can all this content be merged into a different article? Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters and merge Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup into it. bd2412 T 00:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several of these (such as Professor Utonium or Mojo Jojo) need to be somewhere, and this type of article is the best place. While I support BD2412's merge proposal, I'm not sure it needs to be part of the AfD close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that article is also at AfD, which is why a merge would be part of a close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The show was notorious for it’s rogues gallery and supporting characters. The article is just pure fancruft right now and now the editors want to merge the main girls into it to improvise it (which I understand) but I don’t feel like that’s the answer either. Even Mojo Jojo is fairly well know enough probably for his own article if maybe done right. I see some sources talking about Professor Utonium and the villains. Eden though not as much as the girls. They are probably enough to improve the article without merging the trio article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with Blossom, Bubbles, and Buttercup and rename to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. I don't see why we need two separate articles for characters on a childrens television show. Ajf773 (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge per the arguments above -- clearly the content is of interest, but overwritten and not developed to our standard of reliability. Sadads (talk) 15:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is adequately sourced to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. -The Gnome (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters; I think everything I said there applies here as well, which is:

There's clear consensus that this shouldn't be deleted outright (which is mostly what AfD is about). Opinion is split between keeping as is, renaming, or several possible merges. That can be worked out on the article talk pages.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup

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

I just, I don't see the notability here. Yes, the trio within the series has become a pop culture icon. The series, along with comics, its anime spinoff, and the reboot, has come a long, long way. The series is notable, but the characters? Not so much. I'd suggest a merge with one of the relevant articles. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 23:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters and merge this article into it. bd2412 T 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with merge myself if I didn’t do research BUT agree to disagree google was my friend on this one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that contravenes a merge. The article is relatively short, and the proposed merge target is relatively short. Obviously, the stars would be at the top of the page. No information would be lost, just moved to one place. bd2412 T 05:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily true. You’re just not caring that much. There is room for improvement as proven for the sources. Making an merge unnecessary. The revision history needs to stay where it’s at instead of annoyingly redirected with the same info that can be improved by being split off. Also I already noticed one IP complain how there is an Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls) article but not for the main characters when there wasnt one on the girls. I feel that readers will be confused as to why there is an article on Bliss but not of the main characters. It will make so sense to have a Bliss article without having one for the other Powerpuff Girls too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also not true if the characters pass Wp: GNG which I am trying my best to prove HERE because I have no time to edit articles yet. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD2412. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because You’ll be hard pressed to find someone under 35 who doesn’t know about The Powerpuff Girls. Even if the person can’t tell you which one is Bubbles, Blossom, or Buttercup, they’ll be able to point them out in a lineup of other cartoon superheroes. Also because of this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this, €this, this, this, this, this, this etc. Let me know if you want to see more sources. Also little good faith suggestion. Don’t confuse notable characters with “iconic” characters. There’s a difference. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, "Buttercup, Bubbles, and Blossom share something else with their animated descendants: massive merchandising possibility. The three sisters with their vibrant colors and minimalist designs were begging to be turned into toys, plushies, and plastered on t-shirts, and they were. In fact, within two years there were video games, a feature length film, lunchboxes, and even Powerpuff branded dishware."See here: https://www.bustle.com/articles/85657-what-would-the-powerpuff-girls-be-doing-and-wearing-as-grown-ups-in-2015.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How’s this for critical reception? The Powerpuff Girls was one of the staples of my childhood TV schedule. I loved the idea of a group of girl superheroes that could save the day. Not only were they girls, they were in kindergarten and young enough that I could relate to them on a deeper level. They were young girls who dealt with normal kid stuff during the day but were still able to kick the butts of monsters and super villains that threatened their city. The three main characters had diverse personalities and it was common for the audience to see themselves in at least one of them. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources along with character reception are already present in the main articles (new and old series) as are descriptions of the three main characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Move. I agree in general that the trio of characters are not individually notable from the television show(s), which of course is clearly notable. The existing character list seems like a good place to add this info. --Masem (t) 05:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the handful of sources I can use to pass to make it prove Wp: GNG? I guess tomorrow I will be busy on improving this article. An AFD was an irresponsible move anyway as it could have been an merge request. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split I think all three characters are notable for their own article honestly. I think an article can exist for the group as well but maybe under the name Powerpuff Girls (team), then info about all the other characters that have been Powerpuff girls can be covered to. But the first course of action I think should be to give the three main characters their separate articles which would allow for more focus.★Trekker (talk) 07:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced already in the article, and those mentioned above by Jhenderson777 per Wikipedia:NEXIST. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls - On face value it may look like this article is well sourced but information was merely copied and pasted from The Powerpuff Girls article (which is GA rated). Every source in this article is also present on the main series page, this is not a coincidence. The rest of the lengthy info is fan fluff. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true. There is new info and sources that aren’t used on the other Wikipedia page. This is assumption of bad faith to assume that they are copied and pasted. Also stop ignoring Wikipedia:NEXIST and WP:Imperfect. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not bad faith, look for yourself....every source in the article is from the original series page. There is also WP:NOTINHERITED to keep in mind. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at my keep comments. That is not Wp: Inherited. Also I paid attention. there is only ~~four borrowed sources~~ Try again! Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok a lot of sources seem to be used that are already in the article. But still some were added. Also still there are a handful of other sources not yet used. But let’s keep ignoring that. Some of what was talked about belongs here more because the article of the Powerpuff Girls is talking about what is not in the show and also the girls being ranked as top cartoon characters by TV Guide primary subject still belongs here more than the parent article.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the articles overlap way too much.... The line "The TV Guide chose the Powerpuff Girls as No. 13 in a list of the 50 Greatest cartoon characters of all time." referencing the TV guide is present under the "Critical reception" section of the original series article and is also present in the "Reception" section at Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup. The name of "Buttercup" originally known as "Bud" is present in the original series article under "characters" while in Blossom, Bubbles and Buttercup it is present under "Buttercup". The article would need a complete rewrite for things not already included elsewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per bd2412. This probably should have been a merge request as the notability isn't really in doubt, just the notability for a standalone article. SportingFlyer talk 03:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect From what I see in the article, it is 80% unreferenced fancruft which must be removed. And the article immediately becomes small and mergeable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little administrator note. If merged I would like a draft on it. I feel if I have time to use the sources that I used and see what the source on the Bliss (The Powerpuff Girls) have the the three fictional girls should maybe have their own individual articles without it being a trio article. (Going with what Treker said.) But I just don’t have the time and willpower for now with it being a holiday season and all. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the main characters in a very significant franchise (the main article is mid-importance on WPTV, high on Animation), yes they are notable. In general, we need to be careful of WP:NOTINHERITED but even the article's current sources show specific commentary on the characters themselves, not just the show as a whole. I think some commentors here need reminding that Deletion is not cleanup, and though we need some plot trimming and expansion of the Creation and conception and Reception sections, the subjects are notable. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is adequately sourced, and that proves to be surprisingly poor, at least so far, to the List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. -The Gnome (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Powerpuff Girls secondary characters and rename to List of The Powerpuff Girls characters. Even if there is independent notability, the current content is still of such insufficient length to justify a separate article and can be sufficiently contained within a single article. If it does become significantly longer at some point in time, they can always be WP:SPLIT into a separate article in the future. —Madrenergic^talk 16:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Convent of Hell

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

Unsourced, no evidence of notability. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 06:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 06:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 06:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being translated by NBM makes me think there's a case for notability, but I'm unable to make one myself. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NBOOK and also consists of little more than a plot description Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NBOOK. We should have a bunch of notability criteria for porn books. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Ether

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his works are non-notable and there's zero Google hits when I looked for any news sources about him. Ifnord (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Mozart

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Searches turn up very little of note – a couple of trivial mentions in magazines, some legal cases which don't appear to be significant precedents, and local coverage in the Los Altos Town Crier. There are more hits for an unrelated KHSU radio host. The article was tagged for Notability in March 2018 and though the tag was removed, the issues haven't been adequately addressed. Nick Number (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete car dealers rarely are notable for that alone, although a few people like Larry Miller have used being a car dealer to propel a larger career in business combined with cultural impact. There is not evidence that Mozart did such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Online mentions of subject are the record of an inconsequential lawsuit and a a couple of infomercial articles in local papers. Grandly fails WP:BIO. -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Austin FC

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

There is no such team. In 2018, owner of MLS's Columbus Crew SC threatened to move the team to Austin. On October 12, 2018, the owner of the Cleveland Browns, Jimmy Haslam, released a statement stating he was in the process of buying the Crew, along with other local groups."Statement from Dee and Jimmy Haslam on interest in Columbus Crew". ClevelandBrowns.com (Press release). NFL Enterprises, LLC. October 12, 2018. Retrieved October 13, 2018. MLS later released a statement stating their willingness to keep the Crew in Columbus, and that Precourt will get the rights to start a team in Austin if the deal goes through.MLSsoccer staff (October 12, 2018). "Cleveland Browns owners emerge as potential buyers of Columbus Crew SC". MLSSoccer.com. MLS Digital. Retrieved October 13, 2018. However, there is currently no team and no team name. This is entirely speculative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just restore the redirect and/or discuss on talk page. We jump straight to AfD too often. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, the Major League Soccer site has published an article that all but confirms it with today's stadium agreement. No need to get all defensive about it - Columbus is keeping their team. If you feel the content on this page is too declarative, that's fine, but removing it (again) and redirecting it to a different team's page will entirely defeat the purpose. A deal has been reached for a new soccer stadium in the city of Austin, Texas, where new MLS team Austin FC will begin play in the near future. - https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018/12/19/city-austin-precourt-sports-ventures-announce-stadium-deal-agreement - Tcardone05 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine to restore the redirect, but we're too quick to create articles and add content based on speculative information. At least on the music side we have WP:CRYSTALHAMMER, but nothing for sports teams. @Another Believer: I am happy to withdraw based on that principle. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Austin FC will be a thing, and that thing currently passes WP:GNG. No reason not to have an article on it. It should NOT be redirected to Columbus. [1] [2] SportingFlyer talk 21:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I just found that statement from the league, I reverted my change to the redirect and added it to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was clearly a contentious AfD. There were about twice as many delete votes as there were keep votes, but as we all know, AfDs are not just about vote counting. There were two arguments that were most convincing to me, and neither of them were adequately refuted by any of the editors voting to keep the article.

The first was FOARP's argument that the list itself is not notable per WP:LISTN. (Note that this is subtly different from saying that there are a lot of unsourced entries in the article.) Per LISTN, the subject of the list itself must be a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". In other words, it is possible to have a list article where every item in the list is properly sourced, but the list itself is non-notable because that group or set of things hasn't been discussed in sources. For instance, List of notable men with brown hair and green eyes.

The second argument that was not refuted was dlthewave's argument that the sourcing for this article is problematic. The introductory sentence of this article (as well as some of the keep voters here) implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry. In order to include people in such a list, we'd need sources that prove the falsehood of their claims, and those sources are not likely to exist in the vast majority of (if not all) cases. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 01:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry

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

This is a listicle which can never be complete, which is not a defining feature of anyone's life and which invites attempts to debate and argue about unproven or unprovable (either way) claims of ancestry. The place for such nuanced discussions or objections to such claims is not a list-format article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. There's already Cherokee#Notable historical (and current) Cherokee for, you know, actual, verified Cherokee. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - That a list can never be complete is no reason, at all, to delete it. Similarly, a page's tendency to make editors edit disruptively is no reason to delete it either.

What is a reason for deleting is lack of notability. Is there any sign at all that lists of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry are notable per WP:LISTN? Yes, there is coverage of people who have self-identified as having Cherokee ancestry, but to substantiate the notability of a list of them needs something more than just individual instances of people claiming Cherokee ancestry. Has any reliable, independent source ever listed people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry? I can't see any. As such this article fails WP:GNG and appears to be simply an editor-created synthesis of facts (see WP:SYNTH) and as such is original research (WP:OR) which should never be allowed. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is beyond horrific; NNDB isn't the worst of it. Worse are the BLP issues; this seems to be "people who have mentioned they might have distant Cherokee ancestry but can't prove it". Many entries are unsourced. This nomination is in immediate response to an edit-war regarding Elizabeth Warren, but the page is a disaster regardless of how that is handled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Cherokee#Notable historical (and current) Cherokee. Other than that, anyone can claim to be a Cherokee and make this list but per WP:NOT, such articles should be discouraged. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Catrìona (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The whole point of this list is that these are people who are *not* members of Cherokee tribes; so it has no overlap with the Cherokee, Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, or United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. Yet they claim Cherokee descent, which is widely written about in books and newspapers. The phenomenon of non-tribal members claiming Cherokee descent (specifically Cherokee among all tribes in the United States) is ubiquitous and widely written about as well (the external links are just a sampling of the larger conversation). The majority of the entries are, in fact, sourced, and one could simply request citations for the remaining entries, instead demanding deletion of a highly active article with innumerable links feeding into it. The subject is specifically framed to acknowledge the grey area—that these are notable individuals who have publicly claimed Cherokee descent (that they made these claims is completely verifible). I notice that this deletion notice wasn't announced on WP:Wikiproject Indigenous peoples of North America and editors who actually contribute to the article, such as myself have not been properly alerted. Yuchitown (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Some of these people appear to be actual Cherokee (e.g. Rae Dawn Chong, Crysal Gayle), and the claims of most of the rest are only mentioned in passing or by sources of questionable reliability. In Asa Carter's case, it seems to be a deliberate deception. Only in a couple of cases, Elizabeth Warren and possibly Johnny Depp, is it anything more than trivia, so it appears to me to be simply a hatchet job against Warren. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What’s verifiable is that these are people who have claimed to be Cherokee who aren’t tribal members. Going beyond that would be beyond the scope of what could be verified on wikipedia. The fact that endless articles about these people’s indiviual claims and the collectively claiming of Cherokee identity is testament to the fact that it’s not trivia. This article predates the Warren controversy. None of the users calling for its deletion appear to regularly to contribute to Native American articles. One of the many reasons this list is useful is that users tend to add these various celebrities to tribal lists over and over. This provides a place for them to accurately go. Yuchitown (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Keep - I wish we didn't need this page. Unfortunately, if we have a Cherokee People category, and Native American categories at all, we have to have this one or we are violating the rights of Cherokee people to define themselves, to declare who is and is not Cherokee.

This is a list of notable people who are commonly misrepresented and miscategorized as Cherokee, often over the protests of the Cherokee people, who deserve to have a voice in this matter, rather than having sources where Cherokee representatives speak deleted (such as the Secretary of State of the Cherokee Nation). The argument that this is some random list of non-Natives, or non-Cherokee is a strawman. It has never been that.

This is (or is intended to be, and was) a list of notable people who have repeatedly made documented, sourced claims, but who we have to repeatedly remove from the Cherokee categories because these claims have been proven false. The editors who have recently shown up to war on this and propose this AfD don't realize this because they don't edit Native American articles, and they don't seem to understand what we are saying here about Indigenous sovereignty and definitions. And the other non-Natives who evaluate their arguments usually don't understand, either.

Those who see this as being about Warren aren't familiar with the broader issues. Warren, as the highest-profile person on this list, has had a great deal of recent media coverage due to her racialization of Cherokee and Native identity with the recent DNA test, and the backlash to that, resulting in new interest in this old list and related articles. Her entry is sourced with WP:RS sources from Indigenous spokespeople, and extensive quotes were included in the footnotes, not to single her out, but because this high-profile case has resulted in unprecedented coverage and statements that apply to everyone who claims heritage despite having been shown by the Nation(s) record-keepers and genealogists (and even geneticists) that they do not have any Cherokee ancestors. Those who have dropped the claims have been removed.

The extensive sourcing (and since when is that a bad thing on WP?) was to explain the issue to those who are still unclear on this concept of Indigenous sovereignty - that only the Nations can say who is Indigenous. Though recent edits by those without a history of editing Native American articles have removed sources, every entry on here has at one time had (or has supposed to have had) a brief summation and RS sourcing. If this is kept, this is only useful with summations and RS sourcing. I realize this explanation is long, but this is clearly a confusing topic for some weighing in here.

This page exists to simplify and reduce the miscategorization of Bios. Deleting this would result in more confusion among non-Natives and waste of editors' time, not less. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm personally sympathetic to your argument, this sounds like attempting to right great wrongs, which is discouraged. Furthermore, on Wikipedia the only thing that counts is the reliable sources, regardless of whether that's in line with what the tribes say. It has nothing to do with removing people from the Cherokee category if they are not actually Cherokees. Catrìona (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also sympathize with your efforts to understand this, but your attempt to cite right great wrongs does not apply, and is rather dismissive, because the entries have always been sourced - before the disruptive editing by this new crew that removed sources. I regularly go through and remove unsourced people, and move Cherokee people to the Cherokee (or other Nation) categories if they've been mistakenly placed here. Those who edit in the field and know the history of these entries and bios, and how Native identity works, know that. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... I just re-read what you said. RS sources, "regardless of whether that's in line with what the tribes say." OK, you've just shown you don't know how RS sources for Indigenous identity work. Only the Nations decide who is a member of their Nation. You've just said the equivalent of wikipedians can choose sources that decide who is or is not a citizen of Israel, regardless of what the Israeli government says. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One would think that the tribes themselves are THE most reliable source. Most every tribe has a website with criteria outlined clearly and concisely. This has nothing to do with righting any wrongs, I have no idea where you are getting this from Catrìona it is being factual. Assuming that we are attempting to right wrongs via wikipedia is infantilizing at best. Adding a source that provides inaccurate information does a great disservice to the pedia and is, quite frankly, lazy editing.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these claims of distant Cherokee ancestry have not been proven false. The sources document the claims, but most do not comment on their veracity. –dlthewave ☎ 23:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's important to have a space to list individuals making verifiable false claims. Every single person on the list has been verified as not being Cherokee though they have made statements claiming they are or it is included in their biographies. This is imperative because it comes down to Nationhood and the issue of sovereignty. One cannot self-define indigeneity. It is far more complicated than that and to disallow indigenous criteria which has been included in sourced material over self-declaration is unacceptable and does a disservice to the pedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of these claims are not "false," much less "verifiable false." Someone who states that they have some percentage of Cherokee heritage is not the same as that person stating that they are eligible for tribal membership. I recognize and respect your POV on this issue, and on a personal level I substantively agree with much of what you said, but your POV doesn't get to override our requirement to adhere to a neutral POV. The broader point is, listicles are not appropriate places for us to write nuanced discussions of a person's family or cultural heritage. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what familiarity you have with Native identity or tribal enrollment, but these issues widely published and discussed in literature. Getting into who has or doesn't have Native heritage is beyond the scope of the list; the list is for people who claim Cherokee descent but are not tribal members, so cannot go placed in the three tribe's articles. I agree a NPOV tone can be achieved. This list corresponds well-established and well-populated Category:American people of Cherokee descent and related lists under the supercat Category:People of Cherokee descent. Yuchitown (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

I fully agree that the category is appropriate, but I believe the list is not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're verifiably false. That's the point. It's very easy to check if someone is enrolled. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply wrong. Once again, a person can have heritage or ancestry (genetic, cultural or both?) of Native peoples without necessarily being an enrolled citizen of a tribe. If someone claims tribal citizenship and is not a tribal citizen, then of course that would be factually provable one way or the other relatively easily - look at the tribal rolls. But if someone says that some part of their family is Native American and they thus have that "ancestry" the only way to factually disprove that would be exhaustive genetic and genealogical research. In the instant case, there is nothing remotely describable as "disproof" of Warren's family heritage. A "List of people who have falsely claimed to be Cherokee tribal members" would be a different article entirely. If you want to start such an article, I would have no objection. But a "List of people with self-described Cherokee ancestry" is merely that, and it should not be a platform for exhaustive, inconclusive and generally unprovable arguments about whether or not those statements are true. The place for such nuanced debate would be the person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just form the discussion above it is clear this is a very controversial and fraught with POV issue. There is no reason to make this list, especially since it invites many, many more similar lists, like List of people of self-identified African ancestry for Rachel Dolezal, and I could go on and on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above we have the notable people section of an article about this. Categories (which require sourcing) also take care of grouping people who have this ancestry onto one page (the category page). The problem with this page is sourcing as many names on the list are unsourced or poorly sourced and that presents a BLP problem for BLP entries on the list who are unsourced or poorly sourced. JC7V (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope whomever concludes this AfD is aware that the many emotional calls for deletion are based on objectively incorrect conclusions. There is no "notable people section of an article about this." Even before I recently added more citations (with extreme ease; these statements of self-identified are widely documented), the overwhelming majority of people listed have been cited. This list actually doesn't invite similar lists (although that's not a cause for deletion in Wikipedia policy), a List of people of self-identified African ancestry might not more than a few notable additions besides Rachel Dolezal; she stands out because she is an outlier. Being potentially controversial is no cause for deletion (Wikipedia is not censored); however, this subject is only controversial to editors who have not previously been involved in Native American subjects. In Indian Country, self-identification of Cherokee descent is widely discussed and written about. Native American identity in the United States (that includes American Indians, Inuit, Yupiit, Aleut, and Native Hawaians—so it's not even a discrete ethnic group) does not compare to the identity of other ethnic groups because of its political status. Of course, a NPOV tone has to be achieved, but this is a challenge with innumerable articles and not cause for deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

For example, from the external links:

Going 'Native': Why Are Americans Hijacking Cherokee Identity? - VOA News
"Why Do So Many Americans Think They Have Cherokee Blood?" - Slate

There are more sources like this; these are just two examples. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:LISTCRUFT that fails to establish the importance of the list. desmay (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria "Notable people who have stated that they have some Cherokee ancestry but are not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes" is problematic due to the fact that their status an enrolled citizen is A) unsourced and B) not an indicator of having "some" Cherokee ancestry. Most if not all of the entries are individuals who claim to have a small percentage of Cherokee blood; they generally are not claiming tribal citizenship. –dlthewave ☎ 23:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love this point, by you, as a classic example of moving the goalposts. Above, you explicitly spell out the criteria from the list 14 minutes before you try to change criteria of the list. Once you start changing the criteria, of course, then some of those on the list can have citations removed by not meeting the new criteria. Funny how that works. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By removing the tribal enrollment requirement, I actually changed it to a more lenient criteria that would have allowed many of the entries to remain, but this change was quickly reverted. My subsequent removals were based on a lack of sourcing for the original criteria, "not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes". –dlthewave ☎ 22:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The various arguments marshaled for deletion are almost all Straw man arguments. When the arguments appeal to WP policy and guidelines about why the list should be deleted, the policies are either misrepresented or not applicable; please, check the links yourself. Throw in some disparaging terms like "listicle" or "listcruft" to question the list's very existence (plus I don't like it and They don't like it) and that covers the delete arguments. It is clear the list and the people on it fall under the linked guidelines. The remaining argument about lack of reliable and verifiable sources illustrate inadequate source evaluation skills of those making it rather than lack of sources. People on the list without R/V sources attached? Transfer them to the talk page under research needed rather than delete the list. This has been an ongoing standard for the list. I also note that User:NorthBySouthBaranof, the AfD nominator, recently removed four sources from the list under a "Trim sourcing overkill" edit summary while this AfD is ongoing, leaving only one source. And then, surprise! An editor removed Elizabeth Warren from the list because "sourcing is outdated". Some editors clearly do not want Elizabeth Warren on the list despite Warren being one of the more widely documented public cases. I'd gently suggest reading Wikipedia is not censored. I'm starting to get a real Ministry of Truth vibe. The phenomenon of people claiming and self-identifying as Cherokee is widespread. An article (predating Warren's Senate run, I might add) illustrates some of the factors around this: The Cherokee Syndrome. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started my !vote/comment above without thinking much about Warren being on the list. I didn't really care. Now it seems obvious to me that this is cleansing AfD, a scrubbing of potentially damaging information from the 'pedia before her presidential run. That is why some of the delete arguments seem so weak IMO, because they start with a goal and then create a rationale. I'm certainly not saying all delete opinions here fall under that but a significant portion may. This is why the list/article history shows people removing citations/sourcing, not because the sources aren't reliable or verifiable, but to degrade the list as inherently unreliable as well as Warren's place on it. Wow. And I just noticed a few people definitely using some talking points from the Warren campaign (without mentioning Warren of course; that would be too blatant.) Now I'm starting to wonder whether anyone here is with the Warren campaign or a volunteer. Or paid. I know at least one person here has done paid editing in the past. Not accusing Clarityfiend of being paid for this, just wondering generally. This theory explains irregularities here and on the article page. I'm also beginning to wonder about Canvassing as a factor. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue with Warren is that this article was being (mis)used as a platform to rehash and (mis)present a one-sided argument about Warren, in a manner which was repeatedly rejected by consensus at Warren's actual biography. If an argument is rejected at one article, that's not license to go right ahead and do the same objectionable thing at an entirely separate article - that is classic and exemplary of a WP:COATRACK. List articles shouldn't be used for this, and that misuse raised the question of whether this should be a list at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo, you're saying that unless information has been arbitrated on the main WP article of a person and confirmed as biographical canon there, editors can't express other facts about them? And you're saying Warren is the reason why this list is at AfD? That you strongly object to any variant or non-canon information anywhere on WP? Good to know. Is the article a "classic and exemplary of a WP:COATRACK"? No, it is not. Were there citations on Warren's entry that were not specifically connected to the page criteria? IOW, coatracked on her listing? Yes, probably. Did it violate WP:BLP? No. Really, NO. Some of the citations hung on her entry might have done so? The content of the page, though, did not violate BPL and the stated purpose and majority content of the page precludes being a coatrack, much less a classic example. The page predates Warren's active political life by a few years. If her entry was given undue weight over the years, that can be edited and discussed. Any editor could have come in and done that to the article. What I'm seeing, though, is a wholesale scorched earth policy to delete the page so Warren's entry can never be on the page, particularly if the list is deleted. Is the page/list framed/defined ideally? No. It was trying to describe (notable) people who lay claim to Cherokee identity without actually being Cherokee. Warren seems to be one but she is an incidental example of a much larger pool of people. This phenomena has been examined in academic books and journal articles and probably needs an article on it. I have rarely witnessed what has been going on during this AfD: the active degradation of citations. I absolutely mean it when I say most of the WP policies and guidelines linked by various people in this AfD are almost entirely specious IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THEM. Just because someone invokes a policy doesn't mean it's applicable. I've seen this in more than few delete rationales here. Also wikilawyering and attempts at intimidation (sorry, to gentle warn me to change my behaviour) using negligible grounds. This is not funny. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor is reminded to Assume good faith, and hasn't offered any evidence to justify not doing so. All removals of content have been explained in edit summaries or on the article's Talk page, and are based on sound interpretations of Wikipedia policy that call for the removals. The editor can "wonder" whatever he wants, but when he makes unsupported assertions of bad faith here, he violates our requirement for civility and the spirit of this discussion. General Ization ^Talk 03:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AFG is not a suicide pact and I do not have to AGF if evidence points elsewhere. I apologize for any perceived incivility on my part. I have been blunt here and sometimes not presented all my supporting evidence (diffs, etc.) for statements about what is going on here. I have not done so because it would take more time and effort than I have available for WP. This AFD is not ANI or some other administrative board and certainly it would be wasted effort here. I do, however, have some experience in researching editors when something seems off or there are discrepancies in the process, or actions don't match what is being said. I've observed abuse of process and gaslighting. If it quacks like a duck... It isn't incivility to state what is going on. As for "sound interpretations of Wikipedia policy", much of that falls to the abuse of process and gaslighting linked above. Wielding BLP as a cudgel to achieve a goal provides a technical justification for gutting the list as quickly as possible during an AfD, going from this to this. BLP throws a glamour of righteousness, of concern for WP's liability and people's reputations over it. Some editors might have used the process of an AfD to improve the citations if they were not adequate rather than razing it to the dead. It's possible some people might believe even the existence of this list on WP is somehow racist, unconsciously or otherwise. It won't be spoken of, that wouldn't be polite or civil, but WP has a pervasive bias on this front that has never been adequately addressed. You want citations for this? Do a little bit of research; it's not that hard. As for the list, the unwavering, steadfast dismantling of it with no significant adjustment through dialog on the talk page show a disregard for consensus and good faith engagement. That is a sad state of affairs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's reliably sourced and it's a notable topic. There's a WP article on the topic – Native American identity in the United States with a section that discusses self-identification. In fact, Cherokee should probably be dropped from the title and expand it to self-identified Native American ancestry instead. There are a lot of notable people who don't meet the criteria to be legally defined as having Cherokee ancestry, but choose to self-identify instead. There is academic research on the topic of the right to racial self-definition, perspectives on racial and ethnic identity labels, and independent sources that discuss the topic in detail, Native American Self-Identification. Some universities allow their faculty and staff to self-identify, with a detailed definition for self-identification. It makes perfect sense to have a list of notable people who fit that category of self-identification. I don't see how this list is any different from the other dozens and dozens of these sort of lists in – Category:Lists of people by ethnicity – that require self-identification for inclusion.—— Isaidnoway (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of those other ethnicity lists include the qualifier "self-identified" in their titles. We don't have an article titled List of self-identified Greek Americans. It's just List of Greek Americans. So if this article is to be kept, I would argue that we have to remove the "self-identified" qualifier from the title for the sake of consistency and avoiding judgment. Also, none of those other lists, so far as I can tell, have, as this article has, devolved into a platform to argue that someone is wrong or bad or evil for merely being on that list. There appear to be troubling, and by all accounts, good-faith, issues about the meaning of identifying with Cherokee or indigenous ancestry in general. If that's the case, this subset may not be a good candidate for a list, which is by definition and practice not a good place for nuance. You either are or you aren't on a list. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Graham

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

Clearly non-notable actor. Does not appear to have any sort of coverage, in article or in other sources, to suggest notability as a playwright. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the filmography in the article, she doesn't seem to pass the subject-specific notability guideline, and the references provided are not from independent, reliable sources. --Slashme (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slashme. Uninvited Company 21:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every actress merits an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads of state of Croatia by longevity

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

WP:LISTCRUFT - List of Presidents of Croatia already exists. Entirely unsourced - many entries are redlinks as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for similar reasons:

Delete per nom.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That being said, I love the zodiac sign bit of the article. Top shelf cruft right there. Though some of the red links could be good potential articles? SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Same type of trivia as this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Prime Ministers of New Zealand. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too trivial to keep on Wikipedia. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivia. Daß Wölf 17:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Staniforth (businessman)

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

Notability concerns; basically none of this information is in "Reminiscences of mosborough" [3] - the only reference listed. Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uninvited Company 22:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like most things that get procedurally kept the whole lot of articles should have been deleted when first nominated. We need stronger controls against mass misuse of Wikipedia to create articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note this is not the lord mayor of Liverpool (who lived around the same time) with the same name. I was able to fine this and this genealogical book - which in my mind is insufficient for GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any more coverage than the previous editor - there is nothing in digitised newspapers except for a death notice. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Naboth Staniforth

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

Notability concerns. First reference is a one-line mention of him building a house; the second is his own last will. Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and reasons specified in the bulk nomination. Uninvited Company 21:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Built a well known landmark in the village. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that it is a 'well known landmark in the village', let alone that were it the case it would confer notability on the person who built it. I am seeing nothing but passing reference (and not much of that) outside of a self-published genealogical family website that does nothing to demonstrate notability. As of this writing, the article has five references: three are primary sources, two recording that he voted, plus his marriage record, one is a published pamphlet that gives him a single sentence, and the aforementioned genealogy website. I have serious concerns whether the entire contents of the infobox (if not the contents of the whole article) might not be Original Research. I am going to have to say:

Delete per above. Agricolae (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not close to passing GNG with the sources in the article or in my BEFORE. If Mosborough Hill House is notable (not clear to me that it is - the raw GHITs are not encouraging) - then that is a separate topic. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any coverage. Electoral lists do not constitute significant coverage, and the History of the Company of Cutlers ... simply names him in a list of masters and apprentices. The only other source I find is a privately published family history. Does not meet WP:GNG

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Staniforth

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

Notability concerns; none of the references seem substantial. The first two currently in the article are genealogy publishers, and the third is a trivial mention of a real estate transaction. Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no claim of notability, would be eligible for a speedy. Uninvited Company 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not even make a claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in article do not establish notability, and while I see various passing mentions in my BEFORE - I don't see in depth coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are additional sources, which seem to indicate other activities - unless they relate to a different Disney Staniforth (they refer to him as a merchant of London, and in relation to French ships captured as prizes). It does seem that he owned the patent on the plough mentioned in the article, as his widow's attorney published notices requiring payment of licence fees to use it. But I cannot see enough of these sources to see whether they amount to significant coverage - and if they do all relate to the same man, and it is SIGCOV, the article would need to be revised to include that information. So delete until someone with better access to relevant sources can clearly establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator is now blocked, and no editor in good standing supports deletion. Sandstein 21:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martifer

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

The added sources returns 404 error and other sources are coming from BlogSpot (self created webpage) or from their official website. No sources that meet WP:NOTABILITY. The page should be deleted as per WP:G11, WP:CORP and maybe WP:G3. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Portuguese publicly-traded company with operations all over Europe. Sufficient sources almost always exist for such companies per WP:LISTED; has nominator looked for sources in Portuguese? (quick DDG search found me this bylined source, many others). UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Of course, there are obviously some sources just based on company press release (see WP:PRSOURCE. There is nothing that could be called independent. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG. This company is regularly featured in high-key Portuguese economic-oriented newspapers who follow companies in the stock exchange market, such as Jornal de Negócios (belongs to Cofina, one of the largest Portuguese media groups) [4][5][6][7] or Jornal Económico (belongs to SAPO, another big media group) [8][9][10][11] - please refer to the search function in the linked websites for more instances of coverage. It was also featured in general-newspapers when covering investigations to some deals with the Navy [12], regularization of workers' situation following the acquisition of the government's shipyard in Viana[13], fines for insider trading[14] or litigations with other companies[15]. The onus is on the nominator to explain why the dozens of news articles that show up on Google search all qualify as press releases; the linked articles are all signed by different journalists and published by several major Portuguese newspapers. Público quotes an array of sources (from the European Comission to several politicians) in their first article, and the Mayor of Viana and a Spanish politician in their second, Diário de Notícias' story came from CMVM, not Martifer, Expresso clearly says Martifer did not give them any soundbites about the litigation. Absence of sources in the article should be followed by WP:BEFORE, not AfD. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another article that is obviously not a press release in another major newspaper: Political party denounces sackings by Martifer in Jornal de Notícias [16]. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No need for a relist, it is rather clear that this discussion will not lead to a consensus anytime soon. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Baclawski

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NARTIST JC7V (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Baclawski is a contemporary artist that should be included in Wikipedia. This page was marked for deletion due to possible "notability" issues. Baclawski was included in "The National: Best Contemporary Photography 2018" at the Fort Wayne Museum of Art, Fort Wane, IA. Additionally, the Lehman College exhibit, "Castles in the Sky: Fantasy Architecture in Contemporary Art" featured Baclawski alongside artists Salvador Dali, David Lachapelle, and Claes Oldernburg.

The Boston Globe has written about Baclawski, once in 2015 [17] and again in 2016 [18]

His work is included in private and institutional collections. Baclawski has been featured in: FRAME magazine, The Boston Globe, The Creator’s Project, Boston Home magazine, Designboom, and The Collector’s Guide to New Art Photography Volume II.

Clint Baclawski should be included as a contemporary artist in the Wikipedia collection because he is currently making and showing art at institutions and investing in the next generation of artists while teaching students at Massachusetts College of Art and Design. If we do not include artists who are truly contemporary, we are doing a disservice to readers who go to Wikipedia to learn about contemporary artists.</include> Levesc12 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Levesc12, But he lacks WP:SIGCOV and doesn't appear to pass WP:NARTIST. WP:ILIKEIT is a WP:ATA (Argument to Avoid) in AFD discussions. It's a disservice to our readers to have articles on subjects who aren't notable enough to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Those pieces don't show WP:SIGCOV. JC7V (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:CREATIVE, works not held by notable galleries/museums, has not been a part of major exhibitions, a gsearch confirms this, a WorldCat search doesnt bring up anything significant, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those two Boston Globe articles cited above do add up to something, when added to the article in Frame (conveniently but rather dubiously uploaded to Google Docs). And there may be other significant coverage (or if you prefer, "sigcov") as well. -- Hoary (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Hoary. The 2016 Boston Globe article is especially good. Curiocurio (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one good source-- the more recent Boston Globe item. The 2015 BG article talks about him for a paragraph. Other items in the article and a search are weak and do not establish his notability as an artist. Meeting even basic GNG here is a bit of a stretch.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NARTIST or WP:SIGCOV. Also possible WP:COI as creator of the page is also the photographer who shot the images on the article subject's personal website, and the Frame article. Netherzone (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Frame article was in print, web edition difficult to find. In regards to significant coverage (or if you prefer, "sigcov") there is also the article Phil Zminda, “Clint Baclawski Imagines An Ad-Less America In Flashing Lights”, Boston Art Review, Issue #02: Field Work, Fall 2018. The web version of the article here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levesc12 (talk • contribs)

Levesc12, you appear to be connected to the article subject, as you claim creator credit for the pics in the article, and at least one of them also appears on Baclawski's own web site. Anything you would like to share? It would seem that you have a clear conflict of interest.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm surprised by the simple, comment-free invocations of "WP:SIGCOV". The latter comes with just two concrete [-looking] examples: an entire book about one person, and the most fleeting mention of one band. Clearly the coverage of Baclawski cited in the article or above is far less than the former, but this is true of not just a lot of biographical articles (an observation that famously isn't a valid "keep" argument) but the majority of them. (Yes, I mean that the majority of poets, photographers, phonologists, psychologists etc that get articles here don't have books about themselves.) Clearly the coverage of Baclawski cited in the article or above is far greater than the one passing mention of "Three Blind Mice" -- and of course this is an absurdly low bar, allowing in, inter alia, just about anyone who's ever been seen on TV kicking or batting a ball. JC7V, Netherzone, ThatMontrealIP, I'm interested: About how much more [independent, reliable] coverage of this fellow would you want to see before saying that it had added up to the point where one could call it "significant"? -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements of GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There does not seem to be an agreement whether the sources are enough for passing WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Marcel Saucet

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

Redirecting to a draft article may confuse some readers. mrwoogi010 ^Talk 15:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Redirecting to a draft is confusing, which is why there is R2. Any way that we get rid of spam is okay with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Juniors. Sandstein 21:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McCoy

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

Uncharting musician. Two references: one being a mention in a bulleted list, the other a local paper. Cannot find significant coverage to show notability. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Juniors, even googling her married name the only thing I could find is a 'where are they now' article and her wedding registry valereee (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Juniors. Her career never panned out with no major releases or recognition. Nothing on her beyond her connection to being a contestant on a singing competition show. This is the second American Juniors contestant to have a nomination for AfD in the past two weeks. It seems in the early days of wikipedia, when criteria was less defined, pages were created for contestants. Most seems to be deleted by now with only those who went on to achieve genuine notability remain...although it may be worth while to double check them all. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SunPy

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

No evidence of notability. Search shows no evidence of significant independent coverage. Only reference is to website of the topic. DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There do seem to be some on-line references: PROC. OF THE 12th PYTHON IN SCIENCE CONF. (SCIPY 2013) and Arxiv. But I agree notability is doubtful, both are essentially primary sources. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability is well in specific research areas: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=sunpy python&oq=sunpy pyth

It is published in an academic journal: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1749-4699/8/1/014009/ WikiNiki (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is very niche but seems to be commonly used within that niche. A significant number of research papers use it. There is at least one detailed paper published on it. PriceDL (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only available sources are primary. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No prejudice on recreation if better sources can be found. SportingFlyer talk 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had commented earlier on the availability of primary-sourced references without offering an opinion. After this long with the article still having no meaningful contents, I think it's time to delete it, without prejudice. If there is a desire for the article, the next creator will presumably include some content. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signifcant coverage in independent sources. Shouldn't be recreated unless it becomes sufficently notable for inclusion.--Pontificalibus 13:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Student of the Year 2. And protect. Sandstein 21:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Panday

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

Fails WP:NACTOR as only appeared in one film, fails WP:GNG as sources are essentially advertising / puff pieces about the same events. Article is WP:TOOSOON, it has been a redirect but fans keep pushing full article, so time to see if this should remain or not. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its better REDIRECT to Chunky Pandey. history. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very happy with this, but would probably need to semi the redirect given the history. This has been fought over enough times. Ravensfire (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Disagree. The personality has well established her significance. She is Quoted as a youth Icon. Please check this Citations on the article. The article is strong enough to pass as a Stub. (Shahreyar yawar (talk) 07: 26, 20 December 2018 (UTC))

Quick redirect to either Chunky Pandey or Student of the Year 2. This is definitely WP:TOOSOON. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the titles mentioned above and apply 30/500 protection. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KoGaMa

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

Unreferenced article that makes no claim of notability. Declined CSD. Slashme (talk) 14:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. JC7V (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as per searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multinational 2019

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

It's too soon to have an article about this pageant which hasn't been held yet. There's a single third-party source cited; it doesn't confirm the specific sentence it's cited for, nor anything else in the article beyond the name of a single contestant. I found one other third-party source mentioning this pageant which provided equally little information (ie nothing useful). The title is wrong since the pageant held in January 2019 is actually Miss Multinational 2018, according to their website. I would have considered draftifying or turning it into a redirect to the main pageant page, but one of those approaches has been tried before, and I rather doubt the article's author would agree with the other. Huon (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Huon (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TOOSOON. It may be worth putting the article back in Wikipedia after the event has actually taken place. Vorbee (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely too soon Spiderone 14:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not only WP:TOOSOON but there also a lack of coverage in media as the three available sources[19][20][21] happens to be press releases from October 2018. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitha TV

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

Self-sourced. No reliable, verifiable, independent sources found on a google search. Promotional text. Spam which has somehow stayed under the radar for years. Cabayi (talk) 12:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of secondary sources Spiderone 18:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any reliable sources which shows that the article is notable. So, it's better to delete the article. Azkord (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gröûp X

AfDs for this article:

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no indication of notability here – a couple of passing mentions in books, two hits on GNews. I can't see that any one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. The article is being edited by the band's creator, copyright holder, and trademark owner. Article is valid and will be sourced as needed, working on.— Note to closing admin: TheHashmeerShashmeer (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hunted down a good reference, but still doesn't satisfy the requirements of WP:NMUSIC - thus delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viddal Riley

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 11:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With one pro fight, he is clearly not yet notable as a professional boxer. As an amateur he reached a high level as a junior, including competing at the AIBA Youth World Championships 2014, the Youth Olympic Games, and the Junior European Championships,([22]) but as a senior ('elite') amateur doesn't appear to have won anything. The other avenue to establish notability is via GNG but I don't see enough. The sources cited in the article appear to be largely boxing fansites or primary sources, and while I found a couple of articles in reliable sources ([23], [24]), there isn't enough to justify an article at this time. --Michig (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Road

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

May not meet the notability guidelines for highways. No reference used in the article. The article is only a single sentence and is not that informative:

“

Camden Road is a main road running from the junction of Camden High Street and Camden Town Underground station up to Holloway Road. It is part of the A503 which continues east as Tollington Road.

”

No third party coverage of the road. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is deemed non-notable then it should be redirected to Camden Road railway station. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of it and there are no sources currently, but @Andrew Davidson: can probably do something. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 is probably the best person for roads but I'll make a start. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is incorrect in that this is the A503 and Wikipedia:Notability (highways) states that "In Great Britain ..., roads that are classified as ... A roads are notable and are suitable for inclusion." There's no separate page for the A503 – just a redirect. Pevsner tells us that it "was laid out in the 1820s" and so it has about two centuries of history now. In London, that's plenty of time to accumulate lots of notable buildings and inhabitants. For example, see Congo on the Camden Road – an interesting account of missionary work emanating from the Baptist chapel there. The Survey of London and the Victoria County History have more details. Overall, the worst case would be merger into some other page such as Camden and so there's no good reason to delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, I think it might be better merged into a larger article as a Google search brought up no sources on the topic. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe an article could be created at A503 road and this merged there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search, such as the link at the head of this discussion, gives me over half a million results for "camden road" and so it's puzzling that Tyw7 is getting nothing at all. I have made a start on expanding the article and still reckon that this is better than starting afresh. Andrew D. (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, I don't consider them relevant as most of the top results talk about the station not the road itself. And I don't think they support why the road itself is notable. They talk about properties on the road. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several GAs, including Oxford Street, Regent Street and Leicester Square spend a considerable amount of their respective articles talking about properties on the streets, which is beneficial as if those don't pass notability for a standalone article, we can write about them there instead. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, By properties, I mean listings like https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/london/camden-road-nw1/ and https://www.booking.com/hotel/gb/spacious-apartment-1-min-from-camden-town-station.en-gb.html

The first few pages of the Google search yielded results such as http://www.londontown.com/LondonStreets/camden_road_dbc.html, which is common on just about any London Street. It doesn't state why /this/ street is notable.

If we include listings such as these, the article would turn into a classified ad.

To my knowledge, there isn't a historic significance to the road, and initially, I thought this wasn't an A-road. I thought it was just a mundane London road that sits between two A-roads. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because all the sources needed to expand the article are old and paper-based, doesn't mean we should throw the article in the bin. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, when I nominated it, web searches brought up only mundane or passing by references to the road. I still think that the road barely scrapes by the notability criteria. I think it should be merged into another larger article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I looked at this yesterday, I would have said "Redirect to Camden Road railway station without prejudice against re-creating if sources can be found to expand beyond a couple of lines of text", but (fortunately?) I got sucked down a rabbit hole about Nikolaus Pevsner and the Pevsner guides (Do people in England generally know about him? I grew up in Ireland and never heard of him until yesterday. Fascinating fellow.) and by the time I was done it was already time for bed. Full credit to Ritchie333 for fixing this one and a fine WP:TROUT for Tyw7 for making a "notability" argument when "The article as is is a useless content fork and should be redirected somewhere else" would have been perfectly fine -- it's OP arguments like that that give so-called "deletionists" a bad name (at least among so-called "inclusionists"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm not certain this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I actually still suspect the title should be redirected to the railway station and this article moved to Camden Road (road) or something less silly sounding. The fact that web searches apparently don't bring up anything worthwhile would seem to indicate that for people who don't live there the railway station is more likely what they are looking for (and the relative lengths of our articles before this AFD artificially expanded the road article would seem to support that). That's a matter for an RM, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, well I initially thought it had failed the road notability, not realizing that it's an A-road!

The useless fork could be considered a "weak" argument.

As mentioned above, a Google search of the road brought up more articles on the station on the road than the road itself. It has its usual assortment of businesses, none of which would be notable.

The N-highway seem to indicate that ALL A-roads are notable, which is another argument on its own. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The useless fork could be considered a "weak" argument. Well, that would depend. If you really want to see the page deleted and wiped from Wikipedia, then it's obviously a non-argument. However, since the railway station article isn't going anywhere, the title would need to exist anyway, so you might as well have just redirected and if someone reverted you with a similarly weak argument like "They're different topics", AFD would be the place to come, and "useless content fork" is actually a strong argument if what you're looking for is a redirect.

All that being said, you seem to be retracting your initial !vote, so is it safe close this as "speedy keep"?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, weeelll I still think there's nothing notable about this stretch of road to merit its own article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whilst referencing needs to be improved, I found more than just passing references when looking in Scholar. See for example here. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition

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

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline.-- Pontificalibus 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability fail on all fronts. No sources at all found.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion, especially when viewed with Special:permalink/874770199#Stott's Theorem of the Pictorial Condition at the Teahouse. --CiaPan (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing with a Google search for either title. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A theoretical term (see WP:NEOLOGISM) that spectacularly fails to meet our Notability guidelines, put onto a Wikipedia page as WP:OR by a WP:SPA in order to (self-?)promote it, based upon nothing other than one article in a 'Journal of Speculative Arts'. Could be a clue there. Should be speedily deleted as WP:VANISPAM and WP:BOLLOCKS or, to be kind to it, regarded as WP:TOOSOON as it's clearly not yet taken the world by storm, nor even a faint breeze. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the article author and chief promoter could use an indef block, as the only reason he is here is to promote this article and in ignore policy. See the article talk and the deletion talk.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I've now had a little chat with him on his Talk page. I think the realisation has now sunk in that we aren't here to help promote theories and concepts which have not yet become established as notable topics. I doubt there will be further editing on this topic for a while. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable theory. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the person who created the theory. The intent seems promotional, which is contrary to Wikipedia's purposes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the troll level of objections I suggest the conflict of interest is from the other way round. The term 'transcendental imaging' is entirely valid i.e. a square can represent a trapezoid (FACT). That trapezoid ordinarily cannot be accessed cognition-wise (FACT) because it looks like a square and not a trapezoid (FACT.) That aspect of imaging beyond ordinary cognitive access is 'transcendental imaging.' I made every effort to take that out of the equation by my intial page called 'The Pictorial Condition' but it was my theory in the essay so I called it 'Stott's Theorem of' as builds on the first rule of perspective which is that shape represents form. It's not new knowledge but a further description of what that knowledge is as I describe in the article now on PHILPAPERS. it's an established site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had to change it to the kown title because there were objections to the title because nobody had heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has heard of it, it is obvious WP:OR and not WP-notable.

Which ends the argument. --CiaPan (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the discussion of Transcendental Imaging to be incomprehensible. It is syntactically valid English, but I can't extract a scholarly semantic meaning from it. That is another reason to:
Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the above commentator has only half a brain that's his problem, not a problem with 'transcendental imaging'. Can the said person work out 1 1=2? Get a phtograph with some objects on it, cut round them with some scissors and then put the pieces on the table in front of you and you might comprehend that 2D shapes represent architectonic form. OK???????? ONCE YOU HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE have you the brain to then apply that knowledge to all 2D shapes???????????????? i.e visual chaos, patterns, newsprint, computer game stills, page layouts etc. It's transcendental because it's ordinarily to hard to see it because a square looks like a square, see???????????? The statement is a qualification of the matrix of that, in clear and simple language to anybody with a brain. OK???????????????? If you're going to put comments here, how about comments with some intelligence to them, rather than silly political empty headed drivel.

perspective has been around for 600 years, this aspect has been validated by academia. Take some time to look at the links etc. with respect.

CiaPan, transcendental imaging is the page name and it's been no.1 on google, bing and yahoo for over five years, therefore not original and notable.

With regard to Nick Moyes comments, I never thought Wikepdia was to promote unestablished theories but to log knowledge, as has been the case with the very reasonable KNOWLEDGE and BASIC KNOWLEDGE AT THAT, for example the impossible trident solution, the artificial imagination link, as an established work of art and the 'transcendental imaging' page which is ENTIRELY FACT-BASED and SIMPLE FACT at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Bishnoi

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

Non-notable politician. Has never been elected to office. Cant find any sources that are independent all there is that he is a son and a grandson to known Haryana politicians. FitIndia ^Talk 10:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Probably going to be notable in 5-10 years time, just not now. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected politician. We do not create articles on people just because their family is notable. Which is why we should delete the article we have on John F. Kennedy's grandson, but that is another issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of clinching a Wikipedia article, but there isn't nearly enough reliable source coverage being cited to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Car Wash

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Sources are limited to primary sources, press releases or effectively reprints/rewrites of them in local media, and WP:ROUTINE coverage (effectively reprints or press releases like "Mister Car Wash opens 15th Tucson location". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. References are based on news releases such as opening of new locations, PR about company social responsibility etc. - routine coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSC. If it presented a world wide view on the subject, I might reconsider but as it is it doesn’t warrant inclusion in Wiki. Nightfury 18:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action Deafness

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Action Deafness

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

The article does not appear to meet notability guidelines for organisations. The only secondary source I have found is this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-ouch-26866338, which only mentions Action Deafness in passing. CircleGirl (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just some further comments-

Action Deafness appears to only work in Leicester and nearby areas. WP:ORG#non-commercial organisations advises that a non-commercial organisation should be national or international in scope to be noteable, unless there is something exceptional about the organisation that makes it noteable. Also, regarding Rich's comment that there are more sources cited in the history of the article- I have had a look through the history. For most of the article's history, no sources are cited. However, at one point the article cited two articles https://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/registerhomepage.aspx (all charities in the UK have a page on this site, so in my opinion, it doesn't show that an organisation is notable). The second article is this: http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/loughborough-news/2009/07/08/group-to-be-homeless-as-chapel-is-to-close-73871-24106512/ However, it only mentions Action Deafness in passing, so I'm not sure if this really demonstrates that the organisation is noteable.CircleGirl (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look kn the history of the article there are a couple of sources. I will look later and see if more can be found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The Church Among Deaf People, London, 1997, P. 8. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, and what is this source? Is it a book? An article? A brochure? Did you verify it has in-depth coverage of the subject? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately it doesn't look like this charity passes WP:NORG. I am having difficulty finding reliable secondary sources. SportingFlyer talk 08:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admirable mission, fails WP:NORG - no in-depth coverage, no awards, etc. Just an NGO doing their little bit to make the world a bit better. Admirable, but non-encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Continental AG. The history is still intact, so if somebody wants to salvage anything for a merge, that's an available option. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zonar Systems

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

I can't see how this meets the revised criteria of WP:NCORP. The references appear to consist largely (entirely?) of its own website, trivial mentions and/or routine announcements. Not that it has any direct bearing on the question of notability, but the article creator is indeffed as a promotion-only account. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will abstain from voting as I did some contract work for them years ago related to coding. The technology is pretty cool but not sure they are wrothy of notice. Just throwing an option that Continental AG appears to own the majority of the company if deleted (maybe create a redirect).--CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with CNMall41, a redirect to Continental AG is a viable alternative (or sequel) to deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard WP:CORPSPAM, coverage limited to press releases, their rewrites, and an occasional mention in passing. Soft delete by redirecting with a small merge to an acquisitions sections may be a good solution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Continental AG with a view to merge the useful content. Govvy (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I won't be voting because I work for a communications firm that represents Zonar. Just wanted to note here that I've proposed a few additions on the article's talk page that would add additional third-party sources to the article. Thanks! Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kay 9ice

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician. His best claim is the "Ashaiman Music Awards" which corresponds to the name of his high school, and for which a google search returns results for 2018 but not 2017. Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no demonstration of notabity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though notability is not temporary, it seems the past claims of notability clearly lacked any merit. Qualitist (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Rubio

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Material is sourced to a tweet and a junk publication. Can't find better mentions of this person in RS. — JFG ^talk 11:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Rubio and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Actors_and_filmmakers#/editor/T-1), for multiple reasons:

Nicole Rubio mainly* is active as Category:American television producers, Category:Women television producers, Category:American script supervisors. yearsactive 1990–present.

* Her works include among others 2005-2016 Grey's Anatomy (TV Series) (script supervisor - 214 episodes), 2005 Sleeper Cell (TV Series) (script supervisor - 4 episodes), 2001 Training Day (script supervisor - as Nicole Cummins), 1998 Blade (script supervisor - as Nicole Cummins), among others.

imdb counts 33 entries:

1. Miscellaneous Crew (19 credits);
2. Director (16 credits);
3. Self (1 credit);
4. Actress (4 credits), among them Grey's Anatomy (TV Series) 37 episodes, 2007-2009 Monk (TV Series) 2 episodes;
5. Archive footage (2 credits).

Nicole Rubio has been categorized, among others, Category:American television actresses, Category:American film actresses, Category:American television producers, Category:Women television producers, Category:American script supervisors.
Google statistics:

57x what links here

hence, notability given without any doubts, 84.254.89.150 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nothing you mentioned qualifies. In particular, you can't refer to user-generated content (IMDB) or to the rest of Wikipedia (categories or links) as indicators of notability. See WP:IRS for details on our sourcing policy. — JFG ^talk 01:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above mentioned, notability given, and btw: to add further references instead of starting deletion requests imho should be our primal goal when a biography is widely covered by numerous Gxxle hits, bye, Roland zh (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roland zh is the creator of and main contributor to the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments given by the IP (and on which Roland zh appears to have based their !vote) are invalid. IMDb is not a reliable source, categorization and links on WP do not mean anything, and GHits only suggest that there are perhaps good sources out there, nothing else. So for the moment that only leaves the nom as a policy-based argument, hence the relist to obtain perhaps some more policy-based !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It appears that the subject of this article could be assessed against WP:CREATIVE, as well as or instead of WP:NACTOR. I have added a few references. I would say that it seems she has played a significant role in creating Grey's Anatomy, but whether it would be considered a major role, I don't know. That is so far her largest contribution, from the pilot episodes on. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based solely on policy arguments, searches indicate that they do not meet WP:GNG, and they meet neither WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing both WP:CREATIVE and WP:NACTOR. More explicitly, as to the former criterion, there is no significant, source-based evidence out there that she is regarded as an important figure, widely cited by peers or successors, known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. She "directed episodes" of Grey's Anatomy; she has not created nor played a major role in co-creating this admittedly well-known work. And as to the latter criterion, she has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, nor does she have any kind of a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. We may be fans of her work but Wikipedia is neither a film journal nor some indiscriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Burwick

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

Not any reliable source which shows the blp is remarkable and article seems to be like advertisement. Azkord (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable computer programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Plus, he chose a substandard WP:VANITY article creator; this bio doesn't even 'look' good in a glance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Methodist Senior High School

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

Unsourced, potentially promotional. Fails WP:GNG due to no claims of notability being credibly established. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete THis article has stood with no sources for at least 4 years. We should not tolerate unsourced articles for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that non-blp articles are not qualifiable for deletion solely per having no sources. See WP:NEXIST for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Tentative~~ SOLID Keep - My WP:BEFORE picked up a court injunction announced through a notice in the Ghanaian newspaper, Daily Graphic and a piece from the Graphic's website that discusses the school's previous site, and an article in Ghana Web (which appears to be a WP:NEWSORG), as well as an interview with an investigative journalist who appears to be prominent in Ghana who went to the school and describes some details of it, also from Ghana Web. I don't think the mentions in the Graphic do much more than substantiate the existence of the school, but the Ghana Web pieces appear to indicate potential notability. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a bad argument by itself but it does indicate that, all other things being equal, we should lean towards keeping when we have sources that appear to be reliable and appear to potentially be WP:SIGCOV. I'm still very tentative about this one because so much depends on things about Ghana that I have no knowledge of (is the journalist actually prominent? is Ghana Web actually an RS?) so I'd welcome input from editors with more knowledge of Ghana. EDIT: This TV news coverage appears to lock in notability, so switching to a firm keep FOARP (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN upgrade by User:FOARP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP's sources - notability established. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but it ought to have a location attached, perhaps Christian Methodist Senior High School, Ga South, as there may be other schools of that mission. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination including the addition of multiple reliable sources references Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient available sources to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by BET#News series where it is mentioned. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Scene

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

Fails WP:NTV due to no credible claim of significance - in fact, all sources are unreliable (IDMb and 2 sites affiliated with people who worked on the show). WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really weak redirect to List of programs broadcast by BET#Talk shows It was a press junket show where the 'hosts' likely introduced or did softball interviews with celebrities in a hotel room as #45 in the day for Halle Berry to talk to about 'what she sees in herself' regarding Father Hood. Very unlikely this was ever a prime BET series (the turnover alone shows that not even the hosts consider it a prime moment in their careers). Nate • (chatter) 19:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that this is another article that has been recommended for deletion from Wikipedia. Your opinion of the show being "softball" doesn't really bear weight on the significance of it's entry. I could say the same about "Entertainment Tonight" or "Inside Edition". There are plenty of MTV shows that have entries which are still on this site after years of being published. Here are a few for example: "We're Dancin'", "Squirt TV", "Amp" (which has two vague references), I could go on for days! The fact that entries on BET shows/hosts are being removed from this site while MTV articles, which far outnumber the BET articles, are not implies a sense of prejudice that is active on this site which reflects the real world. Yes, I know this site should not be the original record of information, so let's flush out the site to remove all of the other "obscure" cable shows, please. Silkysoul —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomination instructions for WP:AFD are on the page, and I'd frankly support any nomination of any of MTV's shows with little longterm notability; please feel free to do so. My vote! here with this show is solely based on the lack of sources and the fact it had a completely generic format without anything unique popping out (if you go through my AFD history I've always taken a dim view on shows of this type with canned interviews and trailer footage, no matter the genre or viewer demographics). Frankly I'd love to see more BET shows get articles, but the network, like it or not, has had its quieter shows get barely any kind of notice from the press while overheated segments of ComicView and BET Uncut sucked up any oxygen those shows would have gotten otherwise, and if a show doesn't have many press or scholarly sources, it usually isn't retaining an article here, I'm afraid. Nate • (chatter) 04:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by BET#News series, where the program is currently listed. There's really nothing in the stub to merge. Ifnord (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laen Reeves

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

No RS citations. Seems WP:PROMO in origin. Tagged since 2009. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Links are all dead. Found one 2002 story about her escape during 9/11. 1 Got here via list of women for deletion. valereee (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found articles from 2002 about her escape on 9/11, which do give provide a source for the names Laura Maynard and Laen Reeves, and that she had worked in radio. But I don't find sources for most of the rest of the info, and nothing to show that she was notable in any of her roles in radio or music. If she was "notorious for her on-air antics", I would have thought that might be covered in local newspapers, but I didn't find anything. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of our far, far, far too common articles on non-notable radio personalities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:NRIVALRY, derbies are not inherently notable, they need to show wider GNG coverage of the derby / rivalry as an independent subject (e.g. Old Firm) and not simply a synthesis of match reports that use the name. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen City Cup

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

I don't think this satisfies WP:GNG. This rivalry was only covered in primary sources (e.g. club/league websites) and a couple of relatively short local news articles. (I say "was" because it's now essentially over – FC Cincinnati has moved to a different league). IagoQnsi (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to FC Cincinnati (2016–18). SportingFlyer talk 21:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two soccer teams played for two years in a matchup with a catchy name. No coverage other than the standard match summaries which mention this name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable rivalry Spiderone 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Azizul Islam (politician)

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

The subject is not notable 1. The subject has never won a national or even local election 2. The article is written in a POV format that is even referenced to his Facebook page 3. The sources are not neutral and not focused on him Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There were a series of sockpuppetry and spamming in Bangla Wikipedia regarding this article and others similar to this one. All those articles have been deleted as clearly not notable. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:56, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:G11: They said, He played an active role in the election campaign of, Jaban Uddin Ahmed. WP:COI: Created a huge stir in the whole election area. Speaker created a huge stir in the whole election area. The subject is completely promotional and maybe spam. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 06:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agogwe

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

Fails GNG, could not find sufficient RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cites two references to a journal. I'm entirely willing to flip to delete if it can be explained why these are not enough, but they haven't addressed it in their proposal. Yes, this is a cryptid and with 99.9999999% certainty doesn't exist, but that's not the essential issue here. FOARP (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the references in the article, it also has received some newspaper coverage, for example here and here. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rlendog and FOARP. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 06:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lukwata

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, could not find sufficient RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous AfD entry. Also, 5 mins on google scholar and I found mention of this animal/mythical creature in a RS, which I added to the page. This tells me that additional RS are out there, and that any problems the article itself has should be fairly easy to clean up. Ryan shell (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Keep - previous AfD entry is a joke, but looking into it, there might actually be something salvageable as a legendary creature. --tronvillain (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another WP:RS citation added, it wasn't difficult to find. Narky Blert (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence H. Brown

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

Inadequately sourced BLP; the one source (which is promotional) does not even mention this person. Appears to fail WP:GNG; Google searches point to other people with the same or a similar name. Cisco Networking Academy also appears to fail notability; its article was deleted by PROD in 2017 as a copyvio. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Appears to be created by a COI user; his pen name for the (also questionably notable) Superguy was "Amigoid". –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is hard to see that this article makes any claim to notability, and it certainly reads like an autobiography written in 3rd person voice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tonia Koch

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

No coverage in RS (or anywhere else that I could see for that matter), does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I found a bunch of articles written by her for Deutschlandfunk, but that doesn't establish notability as it's by the subject, not about the subject. According to the article history, it was translated from an article on the German wikipedia. However, the German article itself was deleted on the 26th of October (discussion here, in German of course). German Wikipedia doesn't have the same guidelines as English Wikipedia, but in this case the closing consensus reasoning seems to be the same as my own (no coverage of the subject in reliable sources). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This German article was victim of a vandal with administrative rights and subject of a mass deletion attack. You hear this correspondent several times a week on air, making her notable to be listed in Wikipedia. The vandal also deleted the biographical article of the head of the Berlin studio of this public broadcast station, witch is even more relevant. The problem with this vandal is, he was accused to have worked to another opposing media company, and has removed criticism in related articles, which appears to be WP:COI. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 09:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being on the air several times a week is not a notability criterion. We need coverage in independent, reliable sources about the subject. As far as I can tell, by "the German article was victim of a vandal with administrative rights", you mean that you nominated them for a vandalism investigation, which was closed without finding of fault on the part of the accused. Regardless, the nature of the German article and its deletion really doesn't matter: what matters is being able to provide sources that actually establish notability as per English Wikipedia's guidelines _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the german discussion says it all - Koch appears to be "just doing her job", has she received any awards, is she/her work discussed? that said, a redirect to a section on "presenters/reporters" at Deutschlandfunk may be appropriate as a wikireader search.Coolabahapple (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

>400 search hits found as reporter or author on DLF should proof, she is part of the weekly, sometimes daily program.[25] --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 22:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonchain

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Pajeet 💩 00:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G4 really. But no mainstream coverage - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11 promotion in violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies Bkissin (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Beasting123 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially SNOW delete. Unsourced promotional crypto-crap. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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