Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Purge server cache

2018 Fontana mayoral election[edit]

2018 Fontana mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Contested PROD. I noted: Fontana, CA is not large enough of a city for its mayoral elections to be automatically notable, and the only source here is primary statistics about the race. Fails WP:GNG, arguably WP:NOTSTATS. A WP:BEFORE search for this nomination found only local sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Alberta Motor Association[edit]

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources, save for one source, a book, which may provide some background and contextual organization on the organization; however, I'd point out, that's only one source. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Alberta Motor Association" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned or new products and services. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Reply That would be trivial mentions, though, as I understand it. Notability is also not inherited. In terms of the sources you found, thanks. #1 may help to support background information, but sources #2-4 cover it only in a tangential way, which make passing reference, or which cover trivial matters (i.e., road safety campaign they sponsored). Doug Mehus (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. --Dreerwin (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Argh, this is one more in a related series of AFDs:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA Saskatchewan
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA South Central Ontario
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA-Quebec
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Automobile Association
and should be considered/closed similarly. Doug Mehus could you please indicate if there any more like this? This process seemed inefficient before (as maybe only one multi-item AFD was needed, tops), and now it seems worse. There was discussion and closure on some of the above. Do we need to round up duplicative discussion in a new round, now? --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, Twinkle does not let you bundle AfDs, but no, this is the last of the related Canadian automobile association AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Then do not use Twinkle. --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, this in one in particular is the worst of the bunch so, while I probably could've combined CAA Saskatchewan, CAA-Quebec, and CAA South Central Ontario into one AfD, this one has even less sources available. Moreover, crucially, per my above, AMA doesn't release any sort of corporate reporting or history beyond brief anecdotes, so even if we wanted to write a detailed article using entirely primary sources, we couldn't. I'd note, too, that AMA's chartered bank subsidiary Bridgewater Bank recently passed unanimous AfD for deletion as it was not notable and failed WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. So, it should be evaluated separately from the other AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Glad to know there are not more. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge, and I would say "obviously". There is no dispute that the Alberta Motor Association exists, is very large, and has some basic history, including that there probably is some year of establishment, etc. Probably the minor amount of stuff about some fraud incident is wp:UNDUE and otherwise not worth mentioning. The basic facts of existence, etc., can be covered in a section covering the provincial subgroups at the main Canadian Automobile Association article. It is very sensible to leave a redirect behind, pointing to the correct section.
Arguments above for "deletion" of this, and probably arguments about the already-deleted Bridgewater Bank article, fail to address why redirects should not be kept, and why past content and contribution credits embedded in the edit history should not be saved. One reason being that future events, or discovery of much more reliably-sourced material, could lead to sensible restoration of these articles. And we are obligated to look for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, The past contributions for this article are not worth noting in the edit history, particularly since many of them may, or appear to have been done by, editorially conflicted editors who quite likely were operating on behalf of their employer or a company paid by their employer. The prose is not especially significant, either. Nothing worth noting in edit history. Also, a company is not "obviously notable"—you really should read WP:Notability in its entirety. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Dmehus, Doncram does not make a claim of "obviously notable", he says that the obvious solution is to merge appropriate content into the larger, notable topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
78.26, Well, he did say "obviously," following which he referenced how AMA "exists, is very large [...]," so the implication was that he thought it was obviously notable, but if that's not the case, that's fine. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to merge or a redirect as the existing prose in this article may not be worth salvaging. Plus, someone could easily just re-create a redirect. Nevertheless, we do seem to have near unanimity in terms of there not being sufficient reliable, independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH and standalone WP:Notability such that every person either favours delete, merge, or redirect. I guess my preference would be for the first, followed by the last, and ultimately, the middle of the trio of options as my third choice. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes by "obvious" I meant it is obviously the right solution to merge the article, rather than to delete it. I've been going round on this with User:Dmehus at the other articles' AFDs and maybe elsewhere. They do not attach much weight, if any, to the importance of our adhering to Wikipedia's commitment to contributors. To me it is, well, obvious that we should comply with our obligations to assist in proper attribution/credit to authors that way.
And for other reasons it is good to keep the original articles (at least in edit history) rather than delete them outright. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more of those. Just one more reason is that preserving the edit history helps inform future editors if/when someone arrives and creates an article on the topic again. If it was outright deleted, then there is no way, or it is not simple, for other editors to find their way to this AFD discussion. The Talk page of the article, which would carry link to this AFD, would have been deleted. Any discussion at the Talk page and here will effectively have been lost, and cannot inform considerations about what to do with the new article. All judments about the relative merits of keeping/including various types of information would have been lost....including say my brilliant comment about preferring not to include the fraud stuff.
Also labelling the decision here as "merge" rather than "redirect" is better, is more descriptive, as long as we are in fact intending to merge some content from here into the CAA article. Choosing to say "redirect" would be petulant, like trying to emphasize that the previous well-intentioned and reasonable efforts by previous editors was really bad, like their work was s*****y or whatever. No need to be rude that way. Specific material and sources that in fact appear to me should be merged over (with editing) include:
  • that the AMA serves Alberta and the Northwest Territories, was founded in 1926 (maybe or maybe not mentioning it was started with 1400 members and that original dues were $6.50), with this source:[1]
  • that it is headquartered in Edmonton and has more than 950,000 members as of June 2018, with this source:[2]

References

  1. ^ Foran, Max (1982). Calgary, Canada's frontier metropolis : an illustrated history. Windsor Publications. p. 277. ISBN 0-89781-055-4. Archived from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  2. ^ AMA. "About the Alberta Motor Association". Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-12.
Brief stuff like that should go into a table row about AMA, perhaps, or into text in the needed section about CAAs subdivisions/affiliates, IMO.
To decide what to do here, Dmehus and I do not have to come to agreement about all that. "Merge" is okay by them and, I guess, is strongly preferred by me (because I think it is the right thing to do for many reasons). --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, I'll remember that book name. I'll take a look and see what's useful, though I disagree it should be mentioned in a "table row" on the merged page about AMA. Stripping out the WP:Puffery and rewriting in a WP:NPOV, I can condense that article into about a paragraph (with citations, including those mentioned). I'm just saying, since a substantial rewrite is necessary, I'd favour redirect over merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Where I disagree with you is the need to "credit" the authors. When you edit Wikipedia, you edit on the condition that your edits are uncredited—that is, pooled together with those of other editors, and then licensed fully to Wikimedia Foundation, who, in turn, license the collective content under CC-BY-SA (attribution is to Wikimedia/Wikipedia).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, I also take issue with how you've characterized my redirect rationale. Similar to how I misunderstood your "obviously" statement, you've totally misread my reason for favouring redirect. It's not about saying their work was "sh**ty" as you suggest, but rather just eliminating the prose that was written rather hastily—like trying to be first create an article without regard to whether it meets WP:Notability or WP:NPOV. That's all.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You are simply wrong about the need to credit. I do not edit on condition that my contributions are uncredited, not at all. I absolutely do want to know that I and others can see, in my contribution history mostly (and only a little bit more by explicit credits in edit summaries (and continuing existence of my work in contribution history at a redirect), say, when my work has been merged elsewhere), all of my contributions. And it matters to me that anyone can figure out whether or not it was me that contributed some beautiful wording or some neat fact or insight or some mistake.
I don't care if coverage of the several branches of CAA is done in table of rows or in short paragraphs about each. But okay, you did not say their work was "s****y", not sure if I was implying that or mischaracterizing somewhat and if so I apologize. But I do think many editors, especially any citing essay wp:TNT (which you did not) and seeking deletion, do show reckless disregard for the previous editors, which rankles me a lot. But it does seem that you value/respect the previous editors' contributions less than I do, you are being very explicit about that.
I happen to have contributed around 15,000 new articles, almost all about historic sites and starting out as fairly short stubs, but I take pride in those contributions, esp. for the good sources linked with more info for interested readers, and for the inter-connections to other articles that I figure out to include, and for my decision-making about creating related articles, and more. Some in the past have been insulting to me about my contributions, and in general I feel they are ignorant about what was involved, and could not do what I have done, and/or they are malicious bullies or worse. But I do understand in general what you mean .... I myself do have a gripe myself with one or two specific editors who have created a ton of extremely short stubs with no value added, or negative value added, as if they just want to run up their article creation stats, where the stubs have same or less info than is already carried in well-constructed list-article tables. It is my estimation here, though, that the authors were well-intentioned and did quite a decent job (meaning the set of all previous editors who built up the article to its current state; i am not evaluating the original author's contribution). And I think you under-estimate their contribution, including by their having found and formatted the sources included and more, and their having made decisions about what to select or not, and so on. Maybe we can agree that we are just coming from different perspectives. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, Yeah, and starting short stubs on historic sites like you have largely done apparently is entirely different. There's more research that can be done. Plus, the historic site doesn't hire anyone to do SEO work to promote their website. I think we have to be hyper-viligant with regard to companies and organizations for AfD, as well as biographies. But yeah, if it's just about a park, an auditorium, a historic site, or some sort of topical encyclopedic topic on say, Rope, then it's absolutely fine to have it start as a stub-class article and leave it there for as long as necessary. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Doncram, But yeah, some editors have been helpful, but it's mostly been clean-up, tagging categories, and the like. I don't care, personally, if an article I performed such trivial cleanup on is AfD'd. I was speaking mainly about the contributions of users "JaneySmith" and "Amatravel," who appear to have been editorially conflicted in their edits (especially the latter), and to the article's creator, who seems to have just wanted to run up article creation stats. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole delete voter has been blocked for sockpuppetry and the sole non-comment vote generated a lot of discussion, so an extra week is recommended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Max Aruj[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable - excluding the bio pages, all sources were either very tangential mention (with Aruj in a credits list) or were largely interview/quotes from Aruj rather than significant independent coverage. Someone whose main claim to fame is "additional music" for a score probably doesn't meet notability standards. Didn't manage to turn up any better sources in a WP:BEFORE search. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Red Alert (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Dry Bones (character)[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE found nothing notable about the Dry Bones enemy that merits a separate page. Unreferenced and fancrufty. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - minor fictional character with no independent notability. Very little content to warrant splitting from any number of Super Mario related articles. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore redirect made by @Utopes:. ミラP 03:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Powermasters[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Machine Wars[edit]

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Revelation Space locations[edit]

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

Just another Revelation Space fancruft list with zilch sourcing. Following on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions in Revelation Space. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Paris pour un beefsteak[edit]

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

Historical song which doesn't appear to be notable. Perhaps a candidate for transwiki to Wikisource? creffett (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Salvagnini[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much (or any) evidence of reliable secondary, non-specialist coverage about this Italian sheet metal company. Many people would also interpret this article as promotional - I can see it has needed regular efforts to remove blatant promotion. Time for the article to go, fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 01:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Beesfund[edit]

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

Very large article on very small venture fund--the total capitalization is about $8 million. The references exception are notices of funding or trivial PR releases or interviews that amount to pr releases, like ref. 3, where the founder says whatever he cares to, or inclusion in general articles. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but I'm sorry, your arguments are not true. It's not a venture fund, it's an equity crowdfunding platform that is gaining a significant attention of mainstream media, including Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider. I'm really able to recognize "trivial PR releases," hence I have included none. I can understand the subject is complicated (articles on other platforms are of similar length: PledgeMusic, Symbid, Invesdor) -- and this is why I carefully tried to explain the complexity with the NPOV, in an informative form, with facts having sources. The length itself, nor capitalization (what's your source?) is no reason for deletion. If you have doubts, we can add the {{expert needed}} badge. — Kochas 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, as per WP:SAVEPROD, and no clear consensus, I'm letting you know I've explained the rationale on creating the article in the discussion here. I've also edited out the article. If I may, I suggest we deprod. Should you had any further questions and/or suggestions what bits you have doubts over, I'd be happy to respond and work further on the article. — Kochas (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep as it appears to be notable and is one of the more well written articles compared to the permastubs like Motus Bank and other Canadian financial institutions. Still, that's not to say this article doesn't need some WP:NPOV improvements. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: Okay, WP:IAR could also be used here to legitimize my argument. I'm still not completely convinced the need to delete this article, as it is quite in-depth. Does the WP:Notability refer to minimum shareholder equity/capital for notability? Doug Mehus (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Long article. I'd like to ask User:Kochas is he has any WP:COI to declare, such as being paid to create this? Now, notability. Lots of press releases and primary. [5] (Forbes) is half-interview, and the parts that are not read like taken from a press release. [6] Another interview. [7] - paywalled, so can't verify. [8] - rewritten press/release / one para. Everything else seems like low quality source. It's a very long WP:CORSPAM entry, but in the end I don't see what makes it pass WP:NORG. In other words, the usual start-up 'buy us/our shares' type of promo spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your voice, User:Piotrus. For a one-time journalist and editor myself, my mission is to provide useful, readable prose. And as you might see in my edits, I prefer to contribute with coherent articles rather than adding small parts, to make a strong, well written material for a WP:GOOD article. Which has nothing to do with WP:PE. When you're interested (or are fascinated by, for that matter) in a subject, you're dedicated to spread the word. I'm sure you know it yourself, since you've created so many history articles (kudos to you!). The company is gaining so much media attention I've been gathering all the sources for a long time now, eventually making a strong article out of it. Similarly to my earlier articles on Venture capital in Poland, or Startup Poland, on subjects hardly anyone has wished to cover, so far. If you are seeing doubtful references, you're free to remove them, change them, or ask other contributors to have a look at them. I'm considering nominating myself for a reviewer or other specialized function, and I would never cut shortcuts with WP:CITESPAM (I guess that's what you're referring to). – Kochas (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I am convinced there are no COI issues here, however I am still unconvinced this passes WP:NCORP. Granted, it is difficult to AGF such topics due to high volume of spam. Your article is very well written, but is it notable? I am afraid that the coverage is still rather weak (press releases, business as usual reports, few interviews...). Well, let's see what others will say. Btw, I think that it makes much more sense to write articles on venture capital / startups in Poland, where semi-notable startups etc. can be discussed, and I commend you for your work on those overview articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the good word. And as for the coverage, I wouldn't bother with blogs and press releases to affect my reputation. I was really careful to quote nothing but articles that still accumulate in major news outlets in Poland, and they don't just publish PR messages. I'd be happy to work on the piece further with anyone familiar with the subject. – Kochas (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have withdrawn my delete vote. In the end, there is no COI here, and I think the coverage in various outlets, including some reasonably in-depth and reliable like [9] is sufficient to make this pass NORG after all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more source discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, K.e.coffman, but I'm sorry, no argument you raise here is true. Please let me clarify, in case you did not speak Polish (as the company in question originates from Poland, and so does the majority of my references) – I would never quote any opinion pieces in a Wikipedia article. Not to mention self-promotion, or propaganda for that matter (re: WP:PROMO). With all due respect, I have doubts that any historian who is an expert in World War II matters, would necessarily recognize significance of latest equity market subjects, including blockchain efforts led by share market players. And vice versa, certainly. If you did speak Polish, you would definitely know every WP:ORGCRIT criteria are in fact met here. That was my idea to put together the article in the first place. The company's presence in major Polish media is increasing thanks to its crowdfunding campaigns involving hundreds of investors, as well as the changing European law – and in turn, for the last few years now, the major economy media in Poland has covered Beesfund in their headlines more and more. These are the very reasons the article should be there. I hope you reconsider. — Kochas (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the article is lengthy because of its essaylike nature, using many news articles that are not about Beesfund. Maybe it is a sincere (but misguided) attempt to create a useful article, or maybe a deliberate attempt to give the impression Beesfund is more notable than in reality. Because of the amount of cleanup required, maybe it should be moved back to draftspace to re-write it on-topic, without any original synthesis, or off-topic commentary about crowdfunding. Sionk (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Netcad[edit]

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

Boldly nominating from a suggestion on RfD regarding a redirect to the article. WP:GNG is failed here. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

October 19[edit]

Categories[edit]

October 19[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Spouses of United States senators[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Notability is not inherited, so this is nondef. ミラP 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)



Redirects[edit]

October 19[edit]

List of Dexter's Laboratory characters[edit]

Per the delete outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dexter's Laboratory characters (2nd nomination), there is no list of Dexter's Laboratory characters anywhere on Wikipedia. I could consider an RFC or DRV to overturn this issue, but at this time it's just a misleading redirect, so a deletion is for the best. If this is deleted, I'd seriously recommend WP:SALT. ミラP 04:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Freezer-duty[edit]

Not mentioned at the target or anywhere else in Wikipedia, I can't find any sources about it (some kind of police slang?), and most uses in Google Books are either partial matches for "freezer duty cycle" or are about retail/restaurant job duties involving freezers. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Meridia Health Services[edit]

Delete Does not appear in target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Seems like that puts WP:UNDUE weight on what appears to be a very, very minor event. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It was a significant event in the transition of the Cleveland Clinic from a single hospital to a regional network. I just noticed that the merger is mentioned at History of Cleveland Clinic (though not by name), so that's another potential target. - Eureka Lott 20:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom and UnitedStatesian. --Doug Mehus (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Space cruiser[edit]

Previously deleted redirect. I doubt that it is very useful as "space cruiser " is an ambiguous term best dealt with by search result. Zerach (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

If you say so, but it's commonly used in science fiction.--Noah Tall (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Here's an example of a space cruiser from that context. --Noah Tall (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Nightcrawl[edit]

Delete. After searching it seems this term does not have a main topic or obvious target. It does not seem to refer commonly to "yobai" or any of the Nightcrawler media. There is also a song called Nightcrawl recorded by apparently NN group Odd Couple. Zerach (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Which album is Odd Couple's song on? Not even the German article mentions this. I guess for now I'll just redirect it to the Nightcrawler disambiguation page. Apparently when used as a verb it can also refer to photographers who drive around at night looking for photos, Nightcrawler (film) being named after it. Olivia comet (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Ngân Sơn (town)[edit]

Delete, these were obviously created by mistake, maybe because the author didn't check the source carefully.

  • In Vietnam, the only current geographical location named Ngân Sơn is the district of Ngân Sơn. The township of Nà Phặc, though located in this district, has never been named 'Ngân Sơn', and it has never been the capital of Ngân Sơn District either. This redirect will cause misunderstanding.
  • Another redirect that would cause misunderstanding is Hòa Bình, Hòa Binh: first, this case about half diacritic/diacriticless has been previously discussed in another RfD; second, it can either refer to Hòa Bình, Bạc Liêu (Hòa Bình township in Hòa Bình District) or Hòa Bình city (Hòa Bình city in Hòa Bình Province).
  • The rest are typo errors. The fourth one, Phong lạc, is clearly unacceptable, since the first letters of names must be capitalized.
  • Lương Thế Trân is not only the name of that commune, but is also a name of a historical figure (one which the commune was named after). So it's important that this named is spelled correctly

153.18.172.42 (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fox Mountain Country Fest[edit]

This is a dead end because I was unable to find information about this on Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hawaii 50[edit]

While I see the use in Hawaii 5 0, this is less likely. It's not like Five-0, more like fifty. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

October 19[edit]

Template:Random portal component with nominate[edit]

Virtually unused obsolete template. Currently six portals use this; which is down from at least several dozen. Those that did use this got resigned to the MfD dumpster, at least partially because newbies were "nominating" new articles on unwatched sub-sub-pages instead of being bold. Replace with Template:Random portal component. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

19 October 2019[edit]