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.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Purge server cache

Archana Jois[edit]

Archana Jois (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)

Notability concerns for this actress. Appears to have appeared in only one film K.G.F: Chapter 1. Refs are all broken even after an attempt to fix them, [1] contradicts the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Manfredi Aliquò[edit]

Manfredi Aliquò (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)

An Italian voice actor. No coverage other than lists of roles found. None of his film roles appear prominent enough to meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Technology company - Imposed Fines[edit]

Technology company - Imposed Fines (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)

Subject does not appear to be an article. Ran it through CSD but did not have a suitable reason. Decliner suggested AfD. A loose noose (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Dinesh Vaswani[edit]

Dinesh Vaswani (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)

OK, I've tried, but I just can't see how this person meets our notability requirements. The first three refs don't mention him at all; others are primary documents – a certificate, a letter. I see no independent in-depth coverage that would either justify having an encyclopaedia article about hm, or enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Fertility Chase[edit]

The Fertility Chase (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)

There seems to be no lasting coverage beyond some routine mentions. Madness Darkness 19:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral, as article creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Greenair[edit]

Greenair (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)

Little to no third party coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG


Defunct airlines AFDs:


Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Keep an airline operating large aircraft that has clearly been in operation for a number of years is noteworthy enough for an article. Being defunct is not a reason for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
MilborneOne, reason is no reference. Even WP:GNG needs third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Then perhaps it should be tagged for references required rather than AfD. MilborneOne (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm unable to find any references to this charter airline in Google Books / Google News, and even the sole external link in the article is dead. --HunterM267 talk 16:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

CYM Group[edit]

CYM Group (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)

CYM Group is a student club formed in 2009 at the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City to encourage critical thinking. Basically it is a non-notable student club, however, in 2011 it broke the Guinness World Record by making the largest jigsaw puzzle. For this it received media attention. So the question is, does a non-notable student club become notable just by achieving a Guinness World Record and some publicity, or should the article be merged into the university article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Myers (restaurateur)[edit]

Christopher Myers (restaurateur) (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)

Fails WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Metropolitan Throne of Malankara See[edit]

Metropolitan Throne of Malankara See (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)

The claims that the primates of Malankara starting from Marthoma I were enthroned using this particular chair are uncorroborated. There is no evidence that this chair is the one used in 1653 AD or in the consecrations of subsequent primates of Malankara. In spite of the article being up over a decade, the author(s) have failed to provide even a single reference of contemporary records that verify their claims. As such, they remain claims, not historical facts. While the events of episcopal consecration are undisputed, the claims that a specific chair was used without even a single reliable source or contemporary document to back up the claim simply falls short of an article worthy of taking up space in Wikipedia Swordofcherubim (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

- Redirect to Apostolic Throne, or failing that, Malankara Metropolitan. As a non-notable chair it fails WP:GNG. Article also constitutes chaircruft. The title 'throne' isn't necessarily paired with a physical throne. Cesdeva (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Striking as I need to re-think. The article appears to have undergone a major scope change at some point in its history; from apostolic throne to physical throne. Cesdeva (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Apostolic Throne. In 2008 the article looked very different, with a different scope and title; so there may be a topic and content worth salvaging in old revisions. All I can say for sure is that the POV-war has resulted in an unsourced article about a chair, which appears to fail WP:GNG. The content is of no use to readers so the page should be redirected until quality content can take its place. Cesdeva (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge -- It seems far more to the point to merge this to an article in the office, probably Malankara Metropolitan. The throne can be used to illustrate that article and the other material can be worked in. The important thing is the office of metropolitan, not the chair on which he may occasionally sit ceremonially. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Peterkingiron: In order to be 'worked in', the content would have to be verifiable. Have you any sources to demonstrate that?
Also its straightforward to add the picture to the 'Malankar Metropolitan' article because the image has its own separate CC licensing. No merge needed. Cesdeva (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
A !vote requires reasoning to hold any weight. Cesdeva (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 18:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Biswajit Mohapatra[edit]

Biswajit Mohapatra (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)

BLP1E - appeared on a season of Odia-language Pop Idol and all coverage is of that show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Clinton, Mississippi hostage standoff[edit]

Clinton, Mississippi hostage standoff (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)

sadly, another shooting but this is pretty MILL for the US and in the grand scheme of things hasn’t received the necessary coverage to meet inclusion and likely won’t. Also WP:NOTNEWS Praxidicae (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nivesh.com[edit]

Nivesh.com (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)

Promotionalism and WP:CORPDEPTH concerns. The only independent and credible source appears to be the Times of India reporting on fund-raising, which is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The page creator, Niveshmutualfundsforall, appears to have an obvious WP:COI as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – COI becomes pretty blatant when the article's lead contains the phrase "...providing a paperless experience for our partners and clients..." The article sounds straight out of an advertisement. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Athanasio Celia[edit]

Athanasio Celia (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)

Notability. The ref-bombing is largely to uploaded translations to archive.org, which are unverifiable UGC. [2] is a trivial mention of him. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1991 Whitby municipal election[edit]

1991 Whitby municipal 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)
1994 Whitby municipal 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)

Two articles about municipal elections in a suburban town, not really offering any substantive content to make them worth maintaining. They both completely elide the mayoral race, the regional council seats and three of the four local wards, offering results tables only for one ward race -- and the 1991 table just says the winner was elected, without actually including the vote totals at all, while the 1994 table just says she was acclaimed. All of the sourcing in both articles, further, is parked entirely on followup mini-biographies of non-notable people: 1991's on Judi Longfield's non-notable competitor, and 1994's on the non-notable person who was selected to replace her after she resigned from the municipal council to run for Parliament. Which means neither of these actually has any real reason to exist: they're not offering any actual substance about the election, and are really just serving as a way to sneak minibiographies of non-notables into Wikipedia under the guise of event articles. WikiProject Canada's established consensus around Ontario municipal elections is to do one merged article per census division rather than separate articles about each individual town or city, so no prejudice against the creation of 1991 Durham Region municipal elections if somebody can actually find adequate sourcing to properly support more than just one city ward in Whitby -- but since these are missing eight of the nine offices that were actually up for election, and are parking their sourcing entirely on overcovering non-notable people instead of on any actual substance about the election itself, they're not useful to maintain in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Encounter (franchise)[edit]

The Encounter (franchise) (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)

Not a notable franchise. The first film has some coverage, and the PureFlix TV series has slight coverage in Christian media [3], but there's nothing which suggests this is a notable franchise. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge, as Legacypac mentioned. Not even all parts of the franchise have their own articles yet. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Makes no sense to treat the page of the first installment like a franchise page, which is why I did it.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Keshan Perera[edit]

Keshan Perera (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)

Fails WP: NMUSICIAN. IMDb is not an acceptable source and the other references, whilst in Sinhalese, are either mentions in passing or primary sources (i.e. interviews with the subject). It also fails WP: ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 09:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. GN-z11 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

M. S. Pillai[edit]

M. S. Pillai (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)

The only source I can find is the linked official site which doesn't mention his recently-asserted death. It appears that he fails WP:PROF, however, even if he has recently died, BLP still applies to the recently deceased, and I don't think there's enough coverage to warrant an article. Opting for AFD over PROD to allow input from users who may speak languages in which better sources could exist. SITH (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see a few sources - [4][5][6], at the moment I'm not sure that is sufficient, but if more turn up he may qualify under GNG. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Houston Hodges[edit]

Houston Hodges (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)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person appears to have accomplished much as a Presbyterian minister and he is mentioned frequently and fondly in church publications, though little has been written about him in reliable secondary sources. User talk:Jhhhodges created a biography about this person in 2015 which was speedy deleted under WP:A7. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Terrabank, N.A.[edit]

Terrabank, N.A. (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Barry Brown (attorney)[edit]

Barry Brown (attorney) (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)

BLP:1E person is not notable except for connection with closing a college. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge with Mount Ida College. All of Brown's coverage has been solely due to his role in the closing of Mt. Ida College, and this should probably warrant either a merge or redirect. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment; I became aware of this via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law from my interest in law-related articles. From that aspect, I don't see notability of an attorney. However, it looks like to the extent there is a claim of notability, it's not actually as an attorney, but as an academic: president of Mount Ida College and interim president of Suffolk University. I don't really dabble in notability of academics, but it would look like he may meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion no. 6 -- The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. -- depending on whether Mount Ida College is considered a "major academic institution" and whether an "interim president" is considered a "highest-level ... appointed administrative post".
I'm not going to take a Keep/Delete position, since, as I said, I don't usually enter into discussions of notability of academics. I'm just throwing that out there. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky[edit]

David Olshanetsky (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)

This article is a WP:BLP that contains 1 third party source. Quick google-fu only shows articles that talk about the same event as the bbc article and interviews with the subject. Additionally, the article is heavily promotional. Almost every sentence is non-encyclopedic and most of the claims are not backed up by even the unreliable sources. For example "He is the first Tumblr influencer to have approved for the new partner program with the campaign starting at V Festival with support from ASOS" is not backed up by any source at all and just links to a post from the concert on the subject's Tumblr page. If I were to remove all non-sourced content from the article, the only thing left would be a sentence based on the bbc article, and that is not nearly enough to qualify for WP:GNG. SWL36 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Originally looking at the article, the sources are terrible. The only acceptable one is the BBC article. But with a search, there's coverage in Metro, V Magazine, Gay Times, Billboard, and Cosmo. Those sources talk about the anit-homophobia work, his tumblr, starting a podcast, signing a book deal, and being an influencer. --Kbabej (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Forgues[edit]

Christopher Forgues (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 musician/artist; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ENT / WP:GNG. The provided sources are either brief descriptions of the subject's work or interviews on blogs, not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Puff Viceland interview does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan[edit]

Advocate Anis Ahmed Khan (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 04:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Duckefett[edit]

Duckefett (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)

Possibly non-notable food item. I was intrigued by the description and tried to find some sources, but I'm only finding bare mentions and recipes. Sadly having to conclude that this may not actually be notable. valereee (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Restoring the AfD since it it was closed G7 speedy deleted, but then the author requested REFUND Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Duckefett shortly after saying "I was actually wondering if it would turn out to be notable after all, thought maybe the AfD process would prove that". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to be clear, I nom'd orginally, then requested refund after original article author requested speedy. I'm not the original author of the article. I'm hoping someone perhaps in Germany could find sources that I'm not seeing. valereee (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a very short Deutsche Welle article with cooking recipe about it (here). The sauce is also mentioned in the book Meine Kindheit in Nordhessen 1943-1950 (My childhood in North Hesse 1943-1950) by Walter Steinmetz. Gbooks snippet-preview p.73 (here) "This is a simple, typical North Hessian food from a ..." (end of preview), so i don't really know hom much in-depth it goes. If notability can not be established, redirecting or merging it to Hessian cuisine could work. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Nyamo Kurosawa, I've asked at the reference desk if someone can help us find a longer clip of that source. I don't read German, so I'll let you know if I get an answer! valereee (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Received this from reference desk:

I couldn't get a better preview, but managed to tease out some more text by repeatedly searching for the last phrase of each search result: "Das ist ein einfaches, typisch nordhessisches Essen aus einer Mehlschwitze mit ausgelassenem Speck und darin gebratenen Zwiebeln, dazu gab es Pellkartoffeln. Manchmal aß ich bei den Schneidersleuten am Tisch mit. Der Geruch dieses..." [2] "Der Geruch dieses Duckefetts lag mir immer sehr in der Nase. An Gerüche kann man sich noch lange gut erinnern. Der Schneider hatte nicht nur seine Schneiderstube in Riede. An einem Tag in der Woche war er auch in Kassel, in der Dörnbergstraße. Dort hatte er sich ein Zimmer angemietet für seine Kasseler Kundschaft. „Da kann euer Junge ruhig mal mit hinfahren", meinte der Meister zu meinem Vater. Wenn der Schneider von seiner Kasseler Kundschaft sprach, dann bemühte er sich immer hochdeutsch zu sprechen. Die Kunden in Kassel waren irgendwie vornehmere Leute als die Dorfbewohner". [3]

Some further sources: my grasp of German is somewhat limited, but try: Du Stadt im grünen Grund by Manfred Knierim. Deutschland: das Kochbuch by Alfons Schuhbeck. Hessisch kriminelle Weihnacht: 25 Krimis und Rezepte edited by Ursula Schmid-Speer, Anne Hasse.

valereee (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

P.O.H.U.I.[edit]

P.O.H.U.I. (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)

Translated page from the Romanian Wikipedia. Very poor state and not really notable. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: firstly, I think the "Romania Top 100" and "Media Forest" charts are one and the same, because in 2013 the only chart in Romania was the Airplay Top 100, compiled by Media Forest. That chart was broadcast on the Romanian radio station Kiss FM, and the song certainly reached at least number three on that chart, because there is an archived copy of Kiss FM's podcast of the chart of 9 June 2013 [7] - you have to download the podcast in order to be able to listen to it, and the song comes in at 2:18:10. But the Moldovan chart position can't be verified, and unless someone can come up with some good sources in Romanian, a redirect to Carla's Dreams seems to be the best option, as the band is unquestionably notable in Moldova and Romania. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Redirect: The charts are indeed messed up in that article; for an overview of the charts operated in Romania, see Romanian music charts. The song attained some commercial success, but it isn't enough for a stand-alone article in my opinion. Redirect as well. Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - worth noting that there seems to be a lot more results in Russian (the name of the song means "I don't give an F" in Russian). My Russian is not nearly good enough to contribute to sourcing, but perhaps we can get some native input? Skirts89 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Carla's Dreams as it is a viable search term, but it does not appear to satisfy notability requirements. Aoba47 (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The song charted in Romania, so it is notable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Has the song received any coverage from third-party, reliable sources? If so, could you please either list them here or include them in the article? You are correct that charting does indicate some notability, but it only indicates a limited sense of notability. Chart placements can easily be communicated in the artist's main page, without the need for a separate article. I would suggest that either "keep" voters address this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - After some research, I think the song is indeed notable. The song charted in Moldova as well as in Romania, per Eastmain's comment above. Skirts89 15:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Regardless of the decision of this AfD, I have gone through the article to better translate into native English. Skirts89 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Eastmain: @Skirts89: the problem is that while we can prove that the song charted in two countries, there are no sources at all so far for any of the text... if we can't locate any sources to provide some prose for the article, I'm not sure we should be keeping permastubs which consist of just two chart placings and nothing else – it's better just to include that information in a discography table. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above message. I posted a similar comment as a response to one of the "keep" votes above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

High15[edit]

High15 (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)

Inadequately referenced article about a band notable only for appearing in, but not winning, a reality show. As always, competing in a reality show is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself, but literally nothing else stated here passes WP:NMUSIC either -- and even the referencing is parked on one video clip of their appearance itself on the reality show's own self-published website and one short blurb, which is not enough media coverage to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - They have participated in both Talang and Melodifestivalen. Their song was released yesterday and will without a doubt chart on Sverigetopplistan on Friday. Also per criteria 1 on WP:NMUSIC, by friday they will cover Criteria 2 of the same guideline. They also cover Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC as of today. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The article states exactly nothing about them that is even remotely relevant to either NMUSIC #10 or NMUSIC #12. Criterion #10 does not cover off just any performance of any song on any television show, but pertains only to recording the primary theme song to a television series — and criterion #12 does not cover off every single appearance as a performer on a reality show, but only applies to news or documentary content profiling the band as a subject. Competing on a reality show and losing is not a notability criterion at all — the winner of the reality show is the only person who ever gets to have "was on a reality show" be the article-clinching notability claim in and of itself, while everybody else who competed but lost gets to have an article only if and when they have passed the same other notability benchmarks as any other musician who was never on the show at all. And releasing a single is not a notability freebie just because you predict that the song will become a hit in the future — if it hasn't already been a major hit single, then crystal balling its prospects of becoming one in the future counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The "future" is in 5 days. Secondly the group covers several sections of WP:NMUSIC as established above. Also, Melodifestivalen isnt a reality show, it is an established singing competition on primetime TV. BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, you are interpreting the NMUSIC criteria incorrectly: neither NMUSIC #10 nor NMUSIC #12 covers off appearing as a non-winning contestant on a music competition show at all. And for the purposes of NMUSIC, there is no significant distinction between a "reality show" and an "established singing competition on primetime TV", either — because the reality show is also a singing competition n primetime TV, and the notability criterion for that is still winning it, not just being on it and losing. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - As BabbaQ writes. Only the performance yesterday on Melodifestivalen should be enough. The rest is a bonus. Adville (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
They competed in Melodifestivalen and failed to advance to the next round. That is not enough — notability from Melodifestivalen derives from winning it, not just from being present. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Melodifestivalen is not a reality series. It is an established singing competition on primetime TV. Secondly, I have explained that High15 covers Criteria 10 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC. And that by friday the groups song will have charted. That is why Adville correctly !voted Keep.BabbaQ (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Adville for adding an additional good source to the article.BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
And I've already explained above that you are interpreting both NMUSIC 10 and 12 incorrectly. Criterion 10 refers to performing the primary theme song to a television series, not just to making an appearance on it — criterion 10 notabilizes nobody appearing on any singing or talent competition as a competitor, and applies only to the composer of the theme music the show uses over its opening credits. And criterion 12 does not magically hand every contestant on a singing competition a notability pass either — it applies only to bands or musicians who have been the subjects of dedicated news or documentary specials specifically about them. Simply appearing on a singing competition but losing does not pass NMUSIC #10, and it does not pass NMUSIC #12: those are both for completely different things that have nothing to do with competing in any form of singing or talent competition but failing to win it. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Bearcat, about Talang, I agree. That is wannabees competing. Nothing more. You lose you are out.
Melodifestivalen, however, is different. You are not in it without being someone. Maybe on your way up and notable enough to be asked to performe. Or you already are up. If you look at the land of original, Sweden and svwp, all artists/groups performing in Melodifestivalen are notable to get an article. (Not every member in a group). This makes them notable enough for an article in svwp. If you are not familiar with this part of Swedish culture, which has fostered a lot of our Great international artists, I understand your questions. But some research how it work from you will clarify it. Best regards. Adville (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, no, that is incorrect. Melodifestivalen is a "major miusic competition", as discussed in NMUSIC. If a musician ends up in first, second, or third place, that means they meet that criterion. According to the sources, they ended up in 6th place. It's clear-cut, I'm afraid. Maybe any band that performs in schlagerfestivalen is notable enough for a sv.wp article. That has zero bearing on their notability on en.wp. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as after their #46 debut on Spotify they'll surely make it to the Swedish charts on Friday, but for the next Mello contestants I'd suggest to wait a few days until the criteria are met to create the article. A 6th place out of 7 and a talent show participation aren't enough for relevancy IMO. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC) read below. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: @BabbaQ:, @Merynancy: it looks like the song didn't chart on the Swedish Top 100 after all... in light of that, does it affect your vote above? Richard3120 (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It still charted on Spotify 200 and anyway cover several sections of WP:NMUSIC. So my !vote remains unchanged.BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the song failed to chart and the band does not meet the relevancy criteria. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC, and isn't close to meeting WP:GNG. Participating in a music contest is not sufficient. If you think it ought to be, start a discussion and request to have the policy changed, at the relevant noticeboard. --bonadea contributions talk 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The article subject covers point 1, point 10 and point 12 of WP:NMUSIC. It is a guideline established by the Wikipedia community. Any opinion that differs from that are POV and POV never trumps guidelines. This article should be kept, if we follow our own set guidelines. BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The article says nothing about them that passes point 10 or point 12 — as I already pointed out above, the only way anything stated here passes either of those criteria is if you misinterpret the criteria to mean something completely different than what they were actually intended to cover. #10 covers off writing a show's theme song, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer, and #12 covers off being the subject of news or documentary content, not appearing on a reality show as a non-winning performer. And all of the sources in the article are either (a) non-independent (appearing on a reality show does not translate into a notability freebie just because the reality show uploads a video clip of the performance to its own self-published website), or (b) glancing namechecks of their existence in articles that aren't about them — so passage of #1 isn't being demonstrated by these sources either. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools[edit]

List of unsuccessful attacks related to schools (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 fail WP:LISTN. I can't find much that discusses unsuccessful school attacks as a group specifically. There doesn't really seem to be much encyclopedic value to this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep nevertheless it is useful, as shown by the # of page views. Incidents in list are reliably sourced. Looks to me as though User:Fluffernutter made a useful split an unwieldy list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    You're just repeating WP:ITSUSEFUL. And the sourcing isn't the problem (which would be an issue for improvement, not deletion); the problem is that this list doesn't meet WP:LISTN (as far as I've been able to tell; if you can demonstrate otherwise, that would be great, but your comment doesn't do that). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "There is more than enough coverage ... to create an article on ways to prevent school shootings." That's not the same as this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

List of school shootings in the United States by death toll[edit]

List of school shootings in the United States by death toll (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)

This is essentially a duplicate of List of school shootings in the United States, but arbitrarily restricted to incidents with at least 4 deaths. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 1st remove the non-notable/signicant shootings from the article (that would reduce it by at least 50%) then convert it into one table, alternatively, add a paragraph/section that discusses the shooting with the largest/er number of casualties. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Then this AfD should have been opened after renovating "List of school shootings in the United States" extensively. It is a wrong order. Could anyone voting Delete explain how to pick the highest death incident from the current "List of school shootings in the United States"? It is virtually impossible.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Death toll of school shootings (e.g. all the news stories - "deadliest school shooting", "Nth deadliest school shooting) is obviously a notable intersection of school shootings. As long as List of school shootings in the United States is formatted in a way that isn't sort-able by death toll, then this article is not redundant fork. Should List of school shootings in the United States become sort-able (seems to entail putting it all in one list without the era section breaks) - then I'm amendable to changing my !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a duplicate, it is a shorter list of a specific subgroup, arranged in an order users will find useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, another concern is the arbitrary nature of inclusion in this list (4 or more deaths), why not double figures only, or 3 or more? where are the sources that back up 4 as the appropriate number? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    ps. the sort of thing that is required for WP:LISTN (as is sources that discuss (part of) the group).Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    I changed the listing criteria from "four or more victims" to "the worst 25" (actual number is 27).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's still just as arbitrary. Why not 30 instead of 27? or 42? or 50? Even worse, now it's an unsourced claim (on top of "worst" being WP:POV, but that's a minor point) – there's no way to ever verify that something hasn't been missed. And it's still ultimately a duplicate of the information at the main list. This reduces maintainability even further. If you think it's really that vital that people be able to pick out the highest-death toll shootings, then the main list can be worked into a single table (which might be a good idea anyway). Making a separate list that duplicates the information in another every time some idiosyncrasy of the main list prevents someone from gleaning one facet as efficiently as possible is a bit asinine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    (Full disclosure, I just reverted the change as unsourced). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Top 10", "Top 25", "Top 100", "four or more victims" and so on are inherently all arbitrary not backed by any source. It is ridiculous to request a source for the number. The number is determined by a consensus which number is the best suited for a list. The arbitrary number cannot be a reason for AfD.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC) See Deadliest Mass Shootings in Modern US History Fast Facts (not limited to school shootings) by CNN. Why does this article list eight or more victims? It is because CNN arbitrarily determined that the number is the best suited for the list, not too long and not too short.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed - that's a content issue to be discussed in the article.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    No, what's unsourced is that the 25 listed attacks are indeed the deadliest 25 and that none have been missed (even as of a particular date). That sort of claim does require a source. And that still misses the point that it's an arbitrary cutoff point to duplicate material from a list that already exists. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, mmmm, interesting, so we dont need any sources as the no. is inherently arbitrary? well here are some more lists relating to school shootings that im sure will be useful/of interest, look forward to them being created: "List of School Shootings in the US by number of perpetrators", List of US School Shootings by State", List of US School Shootings by Size of School", "List of US School Shootings by Size of Community", "List of US School Shootings by no. of Injuries". Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge The best place for this table is at the start of List of school shootings in the United States, as a kind of tabular form of lead section, highlighting the most significant shootings in the article. Retaining it as a seperate article is confusing and makes it less likely people will find the information they are looking for.--Pontificalibus 15:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • MERGE - We can make sortable tables anyway on the List of school shootings in the United States. Otherwise it is just WP:LISTCRUFT. Acnetj (talk) 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable subject that significantly differs from the other one. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge This one could be merged with the other article without any hassle, consider that when most people want to see the deadliest shootings they want to see the top ones, not the bottom ones, you only need the 10 deadliest (or maybe 20), making it easier to maintain. Garlicolive (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per E.M.Gregory. In addition merging to nominated article make it too long so it isnot usefule alternative.Hispring (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nabeel Zubieri[edit]

Nabeel Zubieri (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mark Wesley[edit]

Mark Wesley (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)

per WP:BIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter Church[edit]

Peter Church (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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, I dont think Cosmopolitan magazine’s ‘Hot Read of the Month’ qualifies as a major award neither do "book of the week" by Sunday times. Also fails WP:AUTHOR, one of his works was of particular interest to a non-notable studio, and a movie was planned but never took off. All his works were only published by non-notable companies, and since he is still actively writing, could be notable in the future, But not now. Daiyusha (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Will Gray[edit]

Will Gray (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)

Primary sources only, except a few passing mentions. Searching did not find significant independent coverage in RS. Major contributor is a SPA, probably with a COI. MB 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment The subject does appear to have been awarded membership of the very select Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not sure if this is where I need to put this but there is now a photo and citation link to the magic circle public members list showing Will Gray holds MIMC with Gold Star which considering there's thousands of magicians in the magic circle theres only a select few with this award i.e. Dynamo, Paul Daniels, Tommy Cooper, Prince Charles, David Berglas.. Thank you for any help.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Macintosh Manager[edit]

Macintosh Manager (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)

Back in November Piotrus PROD-ed this and Champion de-PROD-ed it. I think this makes at best a dubious claim to notability per WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT, just because it was made by Apple doesn't make it inherently notable. SITH (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Thanks on following up on this. As before, I see some mentions in passing but no in-depth review. Do ping me if in-depth coverage is located and I may revise my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 05:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Samsung HMX-R10[edit]

Samsung HMX-R10 (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 camcorder model that does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 02:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Samsung SMX-C10[edit]

Samsung SMX-C10 (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 phone model that does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a camcorder model Allied45 (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Glo-Bus[edit]

Glo-Bus (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Samsung SGH-t349[edit]

Samsung SGH-t349 (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 phone model that does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Henshaw[edit]

Stephen Henshaw (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Schmitz-Moormann[edit]

Paul Schmitz-Moormann (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 DJ, fails WP:GNG & WP:DJ. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think you might be showing your age here, Flooded with them hundreds, by describing the subject as "not notable"... under the name of Kid Paul, he was a very well-known trance DJ during the 1990s, playing around the world. Under the alias of Energy 52, he was also responsible for the record "Café del Mar", one of the best-known dance records of all-time, which has charted in at least six different countries and was named best tune ever by the staff of Mixmag back in 2001. Again, this might be a case of a DJ preceding the internet age and reliable sources most likely occurring in print versions of dance magazines in the 1990s and early 2000s. At the very least, I think this should be redirected to Energy 52, pending searches of back issues of Mixmag and the like. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I cannot find any significant coverage of Kid Paul that is not associated with Energy 52, or with Paul van Dyk. See here and here. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

William F. Rolleston[edit]

William F. Rolleston (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)

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are either passing mentions as member of some organisation, or local sources, letters, or primary sources. Indepth independent sources about Rolleston seem to be missing though. Fram (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Amit Munjal[edit]

Amit Munjal (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)

Have been trying to trim promotional content and unsupported claims, like having been CFO of Citi Holdings, but it is like wading through treacle. His company Doctor Insta has been deleted and salted, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Insta, so cannot really see how he can be notable but not his company. Edwardx (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Preet Hundal[edit]

Preet Hundal (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)

Lacking sourced and it obviously fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Amro Music[edit]

Amro Music (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment in that there does seem to be good coverage online, at least enough for the general notability guideline. I would even say that a few focus enough on the company in detail to pass the corporate depth guideline. The article does also misrepresent the company as a single brick and mortar, when it looks to be a much larger company with several divisions with customers (mainly high school bands looks like) in several neighboring states. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

North American Women's Baseball League[edit]

North American Women's Baseball League (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)

No longer notable: a metropolitan dues-paying baseball club that has not played a game in 9 years. Both independent baseball clubs that sponsored it no longer exist. Contact pages are inoperative. No citations, nor will there ever be. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Amateur local leagues are not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

RoseMarie Reyes[edit]

RoseMarie Reyes (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)

Seems to fail WP:ENT, with only minor appearances in film, television and music videos. Allied45 (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Young Desi[edit]

Young Desi (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 10:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Kin Fables[edit]

Kin Fables (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a short film series whose claims of notability are not adequately sourced. Winning craft awards at second-tier film festivals is not an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM that would exempt the article from having to be sourced up to scratch -- the test for whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it or not hinges on how much the media do or don't report on that award as news. (If primary sourcing the award win to the award's own self-published website were enough, we would have to keep an article about everybody who ever won any award at all, all the way down to local writing awards and employee-of-the-month programs at fast food restaurants.)
But of the nine footnotes here, four are Q&A interviews in which the filmmakers are speaking about themselves rather than being written about in the third person (a type of source which can be used to verify additional facts after the basic notability equation has already been covered off by stronger sources, but does not count as a data point toward the initial matter of establishing notability in the first place); one is an awarding film festival's self-published website; one is the filmmakers' own self-published Kickstarter; one is a short blurb which nominally verifies that one of the filmmakers exists as a musician, while supporting nothing that would constitute a notability claim as a filmmaker; and one is a university student newspaper. Literally the only source here which counts for anything at all toward establishing a WP:GNG pass is #8, the Montreal Gazette, but one piece of substantive media coverage in the subject's own hometown newspaper is not enough to get a topic to the finish line all by itself if all of the other references around it are primary sources and WP:SPIP. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as clearly passes WP:GNG with a substantial piece in the Montreal Gazette which is most certainly not a local hometown newspaper but a major regional source and a national reliable source. Reference one has three paragraphs of prose before the interview, which is admissable as coverage as articles including interviews are not summarily dismissed on that basis if they have valid extra content apart from the interview. Reference four from The Concordian has seven paragraphs in prose about the project before and mixed in with the interview and is clearly substantial coverage, university newspapers are generally reliable sources especially as they do not have the commercial pressure applied to them. Reference nine has six paragraphs of prose directly about the project before the interview section and is clearly substantial coverage. The Montreal Gazette piece documents the two main awards that the films have won so the awards are being reported on in reliable sources and are therefore notable awards according to the nominators rationale. Also it is not just a three film project it also included an album and written work, and I don't see anything advert like in the tone. The article was more or less abandoned till I published it and the project lost all momentum after the premature death of one of the brothers who created the project so there has been no publicity drive. In conclusion the article passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The filmmakers are from Montreal, so the Montreal Gazette represents local coverage, not nationalized coverage, for the purposes of how much weight it does or doesn't carry on the GNG scale. If you're aiming for "doesn't have a hard pass of any SNG, but is notable under GNG anyway just because media coverage exists", then hometown media coverage is not enough to get a topic over the bar — the test is not "what is the footprint of the source's overall reputation?", but "what is the immediate relationship between the precise geographic location of the source's publication and the geographic location of the topic's home?" The existence of one or two pieces of local coverage in the topic's own hometown is not in and of itself an instant GNG pass — if it were, then we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and winners of high school poetry contests and unsigned garage bands and kids with cancer. GNG is not just "any topic that has gotten its name into any newspaper twice, no matter what context" — newspapers often devote coverage to local residents who have accomplished nothing of encyclopedic interest at all, so GNG does test for factors like the coverage's geographic range and whether the context in which the coverage is being given satisfies an SNG or not, and not just for the number of footnotes that exist.
And as for what I said about an award's ability to make its winners notable for winning it depending on media coverage, that test is also not automatically passed the moment you can show that one newspaper article exists in the subject's own hometown: again, that would force the creation of an article about nearly everybody who ever won any award at all, all the way down to neighbourhood arts or gardening awards, because human interest coverage of local people winning minor awards that aren't encyclopedically notable is a thing that newspapers very routinely publish. (There would even be a Wikipedia article about me if the existence of one piece of local human interest journalism in my hometown newspaper about me winning a minor award were all it took to get me over ANYBIO.) Rather, the notability test for winning awards requires the award to be one that generates regular coverage in a broad range of media outlets, such as the Academy Awards or the Canadian Screen Awards, and is not automatically passed by every award that can show the existence of one piece of local human interest coverage about the winner in their own hometown newspaper.
Q&A interviews can absolutely be used for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been covered off by enough stronger sources — but as they represent the topic speaking about themselves, Q&A interviews do not count toward the initial question of whether the topic has cleared GNG in the first place. It doesn't matter how much prefatory text is present before the first Q — the substance of the source is still Q&A. And student newspapers work the same way: they can certainly be used for additional verification of facts after GNG has already been established, but they don't contribute much to the initial question of whether the topic gets over GNG in the first place either.
And it's not particularly relevant that this project also includes an album and written work — nothing stated in the article clears WP:AUTHOR or WP:NMUSIC either, so that doesn't bolster the topic's notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately you seem to be making up the rules as you go along in this case. The Montreal Gazette is a national source not a local hometown paper and does not cover the more insignificant items or subjects, and I have not read in WP:GNG that a national reliable source should be excluded because the subject covered happens to be from the area that it is printed. For example an Evening Standard piece reviewing a London West End show is permitted as a reliable source showing notability. Also the WP:GNG guidelines make it clear that exerpts from a piece can be sufficient for establishing notability; and the prose in an article that includes an interview is not necessarily sourced to the subject at all, that is just your presumption. Major articles in reliable sources most often include interviews particularly for balance and often after negative comment that is obviously not sourced to the subject so interviews can be reliable sources if they contain independent prose content and there is no evidence the prose in these interviews were not the result of independent research before the interview. When the new WP:CORPDEPTH rules were being drawn up I specifically asked if prose content from interviews was acceptable for notability and I was told by @Renata: that such prose is acceptable even if the main part of the article is an interview so if such sources are acceptable for corpdepth which is much stricter than GNG then such sources such as six paragraphs before an interview are certainly acceptable for WP:GNG as applied to film articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not making up any rules as I'm going along. I am entirely correct about how the distinction between "local" and "national" coverage works, for starters: the test is not applied to the source's distribution range, but to the context of what it's giving the topic coverage for. Say, for example, that The New York Times and the Peoria Journal Star both publish human interest articles about food truck operators in their own respective cities — the guy in Park Slope does not automatically get over GNG as a topic of greater notability than the guy in Peoria just because his piece happens to be in a more famous and more widely-distributed newspaper, because the context of what the NYT covered him for is no different in substance from what the Peoria guy got. And by the same token, this article does not instantly render Popi Rani Das more notable just because she lives in Toronto than she would be if she lived in Sudbury and the exact same article were appearing in the Sudbury Star instead of the Toronto Star — the context it's covering her for is still of purely local (not nationalized or encyclopedic) relevance, so it's still local coverage regardless of the fact that the Toronto Star has a more nationalized circulation.
The Montreal Gazette works the same way: even the major big-city dailies most certainly can and do still publish one-off human interest coverage about residents of their own home cities without instantly making those people nationally or internationally notable: the question of whether coverage is "local" or "national" does not attach to a newspaper's distribution range, but to the context of what the newspaper is covering the person for. Even The New York Times and the Toronto Star and the Montreal Gazette most certainly can and do still publish coverage of people of purely local interest that doesn't help to establish its subject as encyclopedically notable just because they happen to live in a city whose local newspaper has a wider distribution range than some other cities' local newspapers do. When it comes to establishing whether a person passes WP:GNG or not, the "local" vs. "national" test does not attach to the media outlet's distribution range, it attaches to the physical distance between the paper's head office and the topic's home. The context of what the coverage is being given for still has to satisfy a subject-specific inclusion criterion. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Brent Coon[edit]

Brent Coon (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)

Fails WP:GNG, highly PROMO. This is nothing but a vanity article John from Idegon (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - despite the article alternating between being about him and his firm, and it looking like a vanity piece due to suspicious SPA editors, there does seem to be sufficient media coverage of him to indicate notability. He has quite a bit of notoriety from his questionable legal judgement, as we see in the article. In addition to the sourcing already there, there are numerous articles mentioning him in the Beaumont Enterprise [[9]], coverage in The Guardian [[10]], and The Wall Street Journal [[11]] (WSJ info but not paywalled) [[12]]. I'd like to see more in-depth coverage such as a profile of him and not just mentions with regards to the famous cases - hence the weak rather than full keep. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Florian Bittner[edit]

Florian Bittner (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)

While the subject passes NFOOTY by the dint of single appearance in the first team of a 3.Liga team (the rest of the season he was in the reserves) - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability that GNG is met. In this particular case, after a through review of available sourcing I am quite convinced that the footballer does not come close to having SIGCOV. Please note that there is a Dr. hab Florian Bittner (das ist sein linkedin) who would seem to pass NACADEMIC(1) - however is clearly (age) a different individual.

A note to keep voters - "Keep per NFOOTY" is not sufficient. Please point out to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (no - interviews and releases by the club do not count).Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL and likely meets WP:GNG with sources such as this. A German-speaker needed to help out with more. Has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE other than a cursory Google search? Obviously not. Article needs improving, not deleting. Good summary of career here which might assist with finding more sources. GiantSnowman 14:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    fupa.net merely has a list of appearances in non-professional teams. As for www.merkur.de - I found this in my BEFORE, and alluded to this in my nomination - "interviews and releases by the club do not count" - this is an interview with the subject (and quite possibly PR flap by the club) on his joining the 3.Liga team - and thus is not an independent source. Unless you actually produce multiple in-depth reliable sources here (which is quite unlikely seeing this player spent a single season with the 3.Liga team (and that - mainly in the reserves, making a single appearance) - then no - we can not assume GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a stub, the article needs improving and not deleting - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yucca Theater (Midland, Texas)[edit]

Yucca Theater (Midland, Texas) (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)

This is essentially a duplicate of the Yucca Theater paragraph in Summer Mummers article. I’m thinking of deletion and the photo of the Yucca on this page replacing the one (taken from a vehicle) currently featured on the Summer Mummers page. Pahiy (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and develop. It is about the historic building, and I think in practice we do cover all theatres surviving from its era, at least of high-style Art Deco or various revival styles such as Egyptian Revival, or at least all those that have been restored such as this one has. From source in the article: "a flamboyant example of Assyrian style architecture. It’s interior has guilded lions, ornate columns and very elaborate light fixtures. It was built in 1927 and the architect was Wyatt C. Hedrick of Fort Worth. Opening night was December 5, 1929 when a vaudville show was presented on stage, and on screen was Bebe Daniels and John Boles in “Rio Rita”. / The exterior is done in cut sandstone with black marble. Columns frame the entrance. / The Yucca Theatre was closed as a movie Theatre in 1974. It was restored in 1981 and is now used for live performances, operated by the Summer Mummers. It seats a little over 1,600. The Yucca Theatre is a Texas Historical Medallion Landmark." It got a historic marker in 1981, as I just verified from Texas Historic Sites Atlas. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
It's good to have the material about the building in a separate article, with appropriate categories (Category:Theatres in Texas etc.) and links to other examples as navigation aids to readers. And to cover its architecture and its history before the Summer Mummers. On the other hand, the article about the organization there now, the Summer Mummers, could do with some paring down, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, User:Acnetj, a !vote with no explanation should not be given much if any weight. And what about the architecture and the history of the theatre before Summer Mummers, which my comment mentions? --Doncram (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comments: Added some content with six references to start. Please note that notability does not actually depend on the "state" of an article. Otr500 (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Steve Lund[edit]

Steve Lund (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)

Note that the previous discussion was about a different person with the same name, so is not relevant to this topic at all — this article, in this form, hijacked an existing redirect from a corporate CEO to his company and replaced it with the actor. There are also still inbound links to this title that are still expecting the CEO, furthermore — most of the actor's redlinks were and are waiting for him at Steve Lund (actor), not here. (I've temporarily redirected that title here in the meantime, but depending on the outcome of this discussion it will have to be dealt with as well.)
This is WP:BLP of an actor, who is not yet sufficiently well-sourced to deem him notable. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR just because they've had roles — having roles is the job, so every actor would always get a free notability pass if all you had to do was state that they've had roles. So the notability test for an actor is not just the list of roles itself, but the reception of distinctions, such as a major acting award and/or having had enough reliable source coverage paid to his acting to get him over WP:GNG for it. Although I salvaged this from the BLPPROD pile by adding sources, there's simply not yet enough sourcing to render him keepable: literally the only strong source I could find is one substantive article about him from his hometown alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get him over the finish line all by itself, and other than that it's possible only to glancingly verify his existence in some other articles that aren't about him, so there just isn't enough coverage to consider him a notable actor yet.
That may change once Street Legal premieres, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his substantive coverage bulks up and/or he gets a Canadian Screen Award nomination next year for it — but as of today, the notability test he would have to meet is "passes GNG on the media coverage", and he just doesn't have enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom who tried to salvage the stub but there just isn't enough notability. I give applauds though because the unreliable user-generated IMDb being used through the "External links" as a source is a travesty. Otr500 (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR, significant roles in at least two productions Schitt's Creek and Bitten (TV series). Plus, a news search of him provides enough coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Also had a lead role in a Hallmark TV film, The Christmas Cottage, a significant recurring role in the tv series Haven, and has apparently been cast as one of the leads in the upcoming reboot of [[Street Legal (Canadian TV series)|Street Legal] (although I'm not sure if production has begun on that one). Another significant role was in season 4 of Reign. The earlier AfD was about a non-notable businessman, but this actor clearly passes notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 17:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
NACTOR is not automatically passed just because an actor has had roles — every actor would always get an automatic free pass over NACTOR if simply providing technical verification that they've had acting roles was enough to exempt them from having to clear GNG on the sourcing, because having acting roles is the job description. NACTOR is passed when the subject is substantively the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG for having had roles. That is, an actor doesn't automatically get over NACTOR just because his name gets glancingly namechecked in the cast lists of TV shows or films, he gets over NACTOR if and when multiple reliable sources have profiled him as a person. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, even though not the B grade actor from the 1960s that I was thinking of, he has an impressive history with reoccurring roles in at least seven television series'. Karl Twist (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Abu Nasir (Srinagar commander)[edit]

Abu Nasir (Srinagar commander) (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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. WBGconverse 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ALBOAN[edit]

ALBOAN (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)

Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 22:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest that its widespread works and importance to the Basque nation make this a notable organization. Jzsj (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You've been around more than long enough to know that social relevance is not a criteria for inclusion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The works seem to me to have sufficient independent coverage. Jzsj (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • When you skip the section "look how good we are", you are left with just the lead with six sources. That is to say: one dead link, an irrelevant link, a passing mention, a related source, a "yes, we have a party and someone is speaking at that party", idem. No in-depth coverage. The Banner talk 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete this is essentially a religious spam article, cobbled together from many passing and minor mentions of the organization. When I do a Google search for news and book sources, the results do not substantiate GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It seems to me that it is doing enough to be a notable organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure, but We do not judge notability based on a subjective feel for the organization: we judge based on reporting in reliable sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - it has a large number of third party sources. If you feel there is spam in the article, you take it out, not delete the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Without the spam, there is hardly an article left. The Banner talk 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New Independent Party[edit]

New Independent Party (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)

No substance. Lacking in information about members. References do not support copy. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep after checking the sources, it is clear that there are multiple, independent, non-trivial sources and thus it passes WP:GNG.--TM 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Science Policy and Governance[edit]

Journal of Science Policy and Governance (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, cannot find any independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Anamta Qureshi[edit]

Anamta Qureshi (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 07:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hydrogen Electric Racing Federation[edit]

Hydrogen Electric Racing Federation (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)

The refs I can find don’t support the notability of this topic. The refs provided are all launch PR from 2007, after which there’s silence, and no indication that the planned races ever took place. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Iana Varnacova[edit]

Iana Varnacova (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)

Vanacova lacks significant sourcing. The one source in the article is not even a working link. My search for sources brought up nothing reliable. Just a directory listing for danesport competition, which I assume is the same person, but there is not enough information there to even be sure. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Eastmain -- With all due respect, but this really does not endow her with any particular notability as far as I can tell after translating it. Rms125a@hotmail.com 00:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Article needs improved, but I think subject passes WP:NMODEL. Would like to see sources added. Skirts89 15:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NMODEL cannot see her passing any point and lack independent third party sources and also fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep subject appears notable. Have we tried looking for non-English sources? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No idea about how WP:NMODEL works since it's so broad and none of the categories seem to apply, but none of the coverage is WP:SIGCOV and I don't see any sources which show she passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Korean Astronomical Society[edit]

Korean Astronomical Society (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)

Unsourced WP:NORG. A WP:BEFORE search shows they have a notable publication, but I couldn't find any sources on the organisation itself, much less reliable secondary sources. If primary sources are found I suggest a merge to the publication page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable organisation, e.g. see its history. There is probably a language barrier issue with finding secondary sources, that probably needs someone that knows Korean to investigate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) I have expanded the article a bit now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Our coverage of Korea is poor and its very hard to find sources in English. We should be slow to delete the few articles we have. Rathfelder (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - The International Astronomical Union is notable. There wouldn't be an International Astronomical Union if it wasn't for local subgroups like this one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Dealt with as a CSD A1 PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahsan Rahim (Pakistani director)[edit]

Ahsan Rahim (Pakistani director) (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)

The page was completely empty apart from the single word director. Rajan Dhillon 02:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Ahsan Rahim (Pakistani director)— Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanD100 (talkcontribs) 02:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Harmony Hill Baptist Church[edit]

Harmony Hill Baptist Church (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)

This individual church congregation does not strike me as being especially notable. The town has only 35000 people and there is nothing that suggests the building is unusual or that this is not a WP:MILL church Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
A couple of prayers at the Texas State House do not make someone notable, and even a notable pastor does not make a church notable. I'm sure it is a great church but it is still WP:MILL Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The church is one of the if not the largest church in the Lufkin/east Texas area and it a has a history of over 100 years. It is more notable than your average church.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm a geography fan and traveler but this town is one I'd never heard of so being one of the biggest in the area is not notable. A hundred year old church is not really unusual in the US, and nothing unusual in places like Europe. I'm trying to help you understand our policies here. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The church is getting close to being a mega church. Just because you have personally never heard of Lufkin doesn't mean the area is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talkcontribs) 06:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A megachurch has at least 2000 attending. This church claims 1500 members which is a different thing as membership usually exceeds attendence in most long standing churches. Legacypac (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - subject fails WP:GNG. Not a notable church. Skirts89 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Because of the references from ktre.com, this subject easily meets WP:Church (and in the same way, WP:GNG), which is policy. WP:Mill is only an essay and not adopted as policy.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:CHURCH is a failed proposal but I'm not seeing how this church meets that test anyway. Can you be more specific? Legacypac (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all non-primary sources are WP:MILL coverage by local news. While I'm sure it's a fine church and has an important presence locally, its simply not notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonzalo Martin[edit]

Gonzalo Martin (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)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Limited body of work. Sourcing is IMDB and subject's web site and film school. Whpq (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Erin Dean[edit]

Erin Dean (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)

She has only had one significant role, not the multiple ones required by our guidelines for actor notability. We also have absolutely no reliable sources, and a google search brings up none John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Kim Page[edit]

Kim Page (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)

Not yet notable--still a postdoc. The awards are student awards. No significant independent published work . The references are not independent. Apparent PR for her university DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure yet. Large number of publications and cites on GS, but they all seem to be as part of a large team in which she is a junior partner. I can find little evidence of independent achievement, like single authored papers. She seems to be an administrator rather than a creative worker. Practice of Wikipedia is not to accept BLPs of people in this situation. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
  • Keep. Although apparently created by university employees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShivUoL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PubEng1) to increase their women count, some of the sources seem alright to me. The student award stuff is not really notable. Deleet (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nomination - does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, likely WP:TOOSOON. Melcous (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that short author lists, let alone single-author papers, are a rarity in Page's field, so looking for them would not be helpful in applying the WP:PROF criteria. Going by media coverage [13][14][15][16], she's not "only" in administrative work. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ulitzer[edit]

Ulitzer (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)

Topic lacks multiple reliable independent sources. The site seems to have stopped adding content in 2012 so it was short-lived and not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I started this article, in 2009, all subsequent edits were made by others. I am going to question the nominations assertion the site was "short-lived". Eric S. Raymond's author page says he started editing there in 2003. So, even in the nomination is correct that the site stopped adding new material in 2012, that would still be a decade or so. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we need a list of failed wikipedia-killers? Google's Gnol was also supposed to be a wikipedia-killer. It stopped accepting new content in 2012, which Mccapra asserts Ulitzer stopped accepting new content. Under what conditions would it make sense to keep the article on Gnol, and delete the article on Ulitzer? Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

List of most-liked Instagram posts[edit]

List of most-liked Instagram posts (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)

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article meets WP:LISTN. Wile most of the coverage focuses on the recent success of the egg picture, there are several sources predating the egg picture by several years. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is mostly original research and a list of links. Note how the same list entry appears twice. Unreliable sourcing and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Spirit of Eagle that the article complies with WP:LISTN; the topic of the article has received lots of media attention lately. There also seems to be enough people following and updating the page that I'm not concerned with it becoming out-of-date. Finally, although admittedly this isn't very impartial, I'm glad the article exists because I can't find any other credible site hosting a comparable list anywhere else. – Monkeyfume (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
If there aren't any such lists elsewhere then this must be WP:OR.--Pontificalibus 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete This is WP:OR. There are no sources to support the list order, for example where is the source claiming that "Cristiano Ronaldo/ Photo with girlfriend" is the 13th most-liked post?--Pontificalibus 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - This subject passes WP:LISTN. Skirts89 15:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

List of most-streamed songs on Spotify[edit]

List of most-streamed songs on Spotify (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)

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a useful, infomative article. Unreal7 (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • It isn't an article but an indiscriminate list. How is this useful?
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:BADCHART. I wouldn't say Spotify has become to the professional music world what YouTube is with the amateur and professional video world, but I'm open to changing my !vote if someone can demonstrate that it is. SITH (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article itself contains a bunch of secondary soruces published over a period of several years, and a quick Google search shows there are plenty more sources about the article topic. I think this meets WP:LISTN. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is very useful and informative, there are no other sources that provide similar information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awightma (talkcontribs) 22:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Awightma (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - this article is informative and useful. It is also backed up by numerous sources. How are lists on most liked and most viewed YouTube videos different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.78.44 (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC) 76.242.78.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete per nom. I especially note, in the nomination, "These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors." The SPAs and IP !votes on this AfD prove the nominator's point. Ifnord (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very useful and interesting list. People look at Wikipedia exactly for these things. --Checco (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I use the source all the time, and wikipedia should show relevant information like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.32.86 (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
202.238.32.86 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Fisayo Fosudo[edit]

Fisayo Fosudo (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)

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The article's first, second, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth sources are all unreliable sources. Being interviewed by Nigerian Entertainment Today and YNaija doesn't make one notable. Also, being nominated for the Future Awards Africa and the City People Entertainment Awards doesn't qualify one for stand-alone inclusion. A YouTuber with only 26, 000 subscribers and 1.3 million channel views cannot be notable. There are tons of YouTubers out there with more than that who are not notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Very weak sourcing and combination of completely unreliable ones. No decent coverage to meet even GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree on very weak sourcing. I did find a few articles on BellaNaija (e.g. 10 vloggers to watch), but I can't opine on whether BellaNaija is a good RS? There are listings of him being nominated for awards (The Guardian (Nigeria)), but no more, and certainly no proper article on him as the main subject from a significant source (e.g. don't think this is a proper RS for a BLP TechCabal). Leaning to Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with you, Ammarpad. The article has about half of the references as unreliable citations, and after removing the bad references and the information supported by those references, it is going to be small. Also, he has 26 thousand subscribers, so he might not be notable, either. So delete. From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 (TSPUS1) (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

February 18[edit]

File:Ningbo Rail Transit Logo No Text.png[edit]

File:Ningbo Rail Transit Logo No Text.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Siyuwj (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Keep This image should be in the public domain due to the simple geometry. However, Chinese Wikipedia deemed that it violates WP:NFCCP#8 and #9. Violates #8 since it used in templates and used on multiple articles without given significant increase of readers' understanding of the article. Violates #9 since it is been placed in templates. This is a continuous request of removal discussion based on the Chinese Wikipedia discussion of removing this logo on Feb. 12, 2018. There is another ongoing discussion on the Chinese Wikipedia to restore the logo image in low resolution, but the administrator thinks this logo does not meet United States's threshold of originality. -- VulpesVulpes825 (Talk) 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete This image meets the threshold of originality both in China c:COM:TOO China and the US c:COM:TOO United States. --Wcam (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:The Umbrella Academy.png[edit]

File:The Umbrella Academy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Film Fan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Not used in Infobox and File:Umbrella_Academy_logo.png also in use not in low resolution. Willy1018 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Siouxsie and the banshees Join Hands with John McKay.jpg[edit]

File:Siouxsie and the banshees Join Hands with John McKay.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carliertwo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Delete. Purely decorative image, used only to illustrate the lineup of performers who recorded an album. That information is perfectly conveyed by text, and even if illustration were required, all the performers are living and could therefore be represented by free images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg[edit]

File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Laith al jazi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dr.Abdullah Al Jazi.jpg Magog the Ogre (tc) 20:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:YannyLaurel.ogg[edit]

File:YannyLaurel.ogg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yoshiman6464 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A single word (whichever one you may hear) is probably not copyrightable. funplussmart (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep I would say it does meet threshold of originality, as a sound recording (whether is is just a couple seconds or longer) is considered difficult to perfectly reproduce. It does follow fair use. --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I disagree. It only illustrates a certain audio illusion that can be reproduced. I think it is {{PD-ineligible}}. funplussmart (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 01:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

February 18[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Islamic dress[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per the main article, Islamic clothing, which was moved to the present title following a move discussion. This was previously declined at speedy, so I am bringing it here. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Superheroes by continent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "Continent" is not a meaningful basis for categorizing superheroes. Currently, these categories are basically containers for various national-level subcategories, with a sprinkling of individual articles that are already in other, more appropriate subcategories of Category:Superheroes. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Samantha Ireland) -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Redirects to anthroponymy pages[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Empty category that was related to Template:R to anthroponymy page, which was recently deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 10#Template:R to anthroponymy page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Fictional men by sexual orientation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary layer of categorization, as not every People category needs a Fictional people counterpart. The 'bisexual' and 'gay'/'lesbian' categories can be (and are) placed directly in Fictional LGBT (wo)men, and there is no need to upmerge to Category:Fictional characters by sexual orientation as the contents can be reached via Category:Fictional bisexuals and Category:Fictional homosexuals. (Pinging the categories' creator, User:*Treker) -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
There really isn't any need to ping me when I'm already editing on the page today.★Trekker (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
It's just a habit for me, I suppose. I always try to ping the category's creator when starting a new nomination. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not sure this one is merited. Compare merge discussion (completed) on Talk:History of Catholic eucharistic theology. PPEMES (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Decades in the City of Westminster[edit]

Propose deleting :
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation per WP:NONDEF.
Where appropriate, these pages are already categorised under Category:Years in London. In nearly all cases, the extra specificity by location is pointless: e.g. it is no way a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the Lancaster House Agreement, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018, the 14th Empire Awards, the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade or the 17th G7 summit that they took place in the City of Westminster rather than in the adjoining London Boroughs of Camden, Lambeth or Southwark — or even one of the outer boroughs.
Look for example at Category:2010s in London. Its most populous subcat contains only 71 pages, so there is no oversize problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Westminster is by far London's most important borough, and it's relevant & defining that the events took place there. Jim Michael (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jim Michael, I urge you to read WP:DEFINING, and then check the 5 examples I gave. None of them even namechecks Westminster other than in the category ... but all but one of them mentions London in the lede, 3 of them in the opening sentence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Each of the categories is sufficiently populated. I am not sure that its status as a conference venue (distinct from London generally) is all that significant, but if they were in a general London category they would get buried in a wealth of material relating to other boroughs.

Numismatics award recipients[edit]

Propose deleting: (but without recommendation)
Nominator's rationale: Neutral. I am not sure about how WP:OC#AWARD applies to these two.
Category:Recipients of the Jeton de Vermeil has been populated in the last 24 hours by User:Hkb, who didn't create a category page.
Per WP:REDNOT, it shouldn't stay as a redlinked category, so I debated whether to create the category page or revert the articles. I eventually decided to create the page, and throw it immediately at CFD to see whether or not it should stay.
Category:Recipients of the Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society is nearly 3 years old, but seems broadly similar, so I have nominated it too.
WP:OC#AWARD says that "in general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." The principle is that the WP:DEFINING characteristic is what people do, not what awards they may get.
In each of the cases, the recipients are listed, at Jeton de Vermeil and Medal of the Royal Numismatic Society respectively. Numismatics is not a crowded field; Category:Numismatists+subcats contains only ~420 biographies, but between them these two lists include ~180 names, of which about half are blue-linked. The fact that one-in-three of notable numismatists could be in these categories suggests a weak case for treating the awards as WP:DEFINING ... but maybe numismatics just a field where en.wp's current coverage is poor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete (I assume there is a list) -- We allow categories for Nobel Prizes and some film awards, but these are exceptions. WP:OC#AWARD prohibits most award categories as they create category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

MLCs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: MLCs is pretty cryptic and certainly not unambiguous. The parent category is Category:Members of the New Zealand Legislative Council, which also contains Category:Women members of the New Zealand Legislative Council‎ and Category:Speakers of the New Zealand Legislative Council‎ - it would be nice if these followed suit. I note that the women's category uses a lower case "m" for members - I'm open to advice as to whether that category is correct or needs changing - if it's correct these should also have a lower case "m". Grutness...wha? 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose un-needed verbosity. In these uses, the abbreviation MLC is unambiguous because the context is defined by the preceding party name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- We have a lot of MLC (and MP) categories, so that, exceptionally, abbreviation is encouraged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles by where they incorporate a citation from[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Correct the grammar UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No objection (category creator). DexDor (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Fictional trans people[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The phrases "trans men"/"trans women" are preferred to "transmen"/"transwomen", to to avoid the implication that they are not men or women but something else. Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Seems reasonable.★Trekker (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge both to Category:Fictional transgender and transsexual characters. At ~30 articles in total, there is not enough content to justify splitting the category based on declared gender. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not true. It's far more effective to have it this way. A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. Merging them would do nothing but make navigation harder.★Trekker (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    A category only needs about 5 articles to be justified in it's existense. That's definitely not true. The 5-article threshold is a minimum necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to justify a category's existence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    I would argue that breaking the category down by gender is not just acceptable, but valuable, because the category is about gender. The fact that Maura Pfefferman is female isn't an incidental part of the character; it's arguably the main theme of the story she appears in. Further a question such as, "How are trans men handled in fiction?" would be a very likely topic of inquiry, which categories are meant to assist. And there's "optics": Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    The handling of transgenderism in fiction would be a meaningful category, but that's not what this is—this is just a bifurcation of transgender characters by their declared gender. I don't disagree that doing this could be acceptable and valuable in principle but for me it's a question of organization, and a 30-member category does not, quite simply, benefit from being split. Even if it isn't intentional, lumping them together would imply they had to be put together because we weren't sure "what" they were, which is not the case. Not so, and I don't think we should let "optics" drive the decision. Someone could potentially infer that, but in my experience people who assume the worst before asking questions tend to do so regardless of how much we try to accommodate them. Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Examples[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Example, and unused. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Being unused isn't a problem if (and only if) it serves the same purpose as Category:Example, which is an example category much like User:Example and thus is purposely unused. However, if it really serves the same purpose as Category:Example we don't need two of them, and thus it should be deleted.
That being said, in my opinion, Category:Examples does not serve the same purpose as Category:Example. We don't use plurals for any of the other example pages -- no User:Examples, no Draft:Examples. I think that it serves the same purpose as Category:Namespace example pages; a real category (unused and redundant, but still real) as opposed to being an example of a category. Thus it should be redirected to Category:Namespace example pages as a plausible search term. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Flora of X by taxonomy[edit]

Oppose - Australia is an island - and has a very high level of endemic flora - and the argument simply doesnt fit. JarrahTree 10:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Should it not then the category be Category:Endemic flora of Australia by taxonomy? And how should other areas of the world be treated? By continent or floristic kingdom? Sietecolores (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, these are not the main "Flora of..." categories, nor are they the "Endemic flora of..." categories. These are intersection of taxon and country categories and are unmanageable. Abductive (reasoning) 12:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least for Australia. This nomination is hard to respond to because it is so vague. If the issue is that plants occur in multiple countries, then sure: that's why WP:PLANTS says to use the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions when categorising plants by geographic distribution -- this is a botanical standard that was devised to address this specific issue. If the issue is that "intersection of taxon and country categories... are unmanageable", then I put it to you that it's a lot more unmanageable to have a flat Category:Flora of Australia with 15000+ articles in it. Furthermore, people write books with titles like Orchids of Australia, Australian Flowering Plants and Australian Proteaceae. These categories map directly onto concepts that people use in the real world. This is not overcategorisation; it's providing our readers with sensible categorisations that they use, they want, and they expect to find here. Hesperian 12:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated as this should either be a merge (e.g. to Category:Flora of Australia) or have an explanation of why a merge is not necessary. DexDor (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Upmerge. There's no need for intersectional categories; Australia is not a special case, so we will end up with tens of thousands of intersectional categories for every area of the WGSRPD + political entities subdivided by every major group of plants, animals, etc. This is gross over-categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment What if, instead of "by taxonomy", we use "by higher taxonomy", or something with that desired effect. Something to 1) reduce possible large categories, and 2) not bait editors to create needlessly over-specific cats. I could, once again, create a template to standardize all of these cats, which would be in the low thousands (~300 countries + a handful of subcats per country? OR even less if WGSRPD regions are used).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Scientific organizations by year of disestablishment[edit]

Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: small (only 4 articles in total), with little prospect of expansion because scientific organizations tend to be long-lived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Support all the above per WP:SMALLCAT UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Freshwater edible fish[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Another pointless category, although not all species are eaten, very few are actually not edible. There are literally thousands of species of edible fish. Nick Thorne talk 06:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete Category:Edible fish by habitat and its 3 subcats. For one thing, it's subjective - if some explorer mentions eating spotted mudfish to avoid starvation then does that mean it's sufficiently edible to go in the category? DexDor (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Marine edible fish[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This is a pointless category. Apart from actually poisonous fish all marine fish are edible, if not exactly palatable or commonly eaten. Nick Thorne talk 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Articles in mediation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I understand the sound historical reasons to keep inactive project pages and even inactive project categories that are not empty. But I do not see any value in keeping inactive, empty categories, and propose that these be deleted. If there is consensus around the concept, I will make a subsequent additional nomination of similar cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Introductions by century[edit]

Category: 20th-century introductions Should the category with or without a dash be used for all subcategories of the form “Introduced in ….., ) for this and other centuries? Probably that without a dash?? (But not Category: 20th-century robots, likewise debuts and neologisms). And can they be changed speedily? I will tag those to be altered if there is agreement on which way to jump! The above two are samples. Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hugo999: my understanding is that the adjectival usage creates a compound modifier which should be hyphenated (see hyphenated compound modifiers), but that other usage should be unhyphenated.
So "20th-century Foo" [compound modifier], but "FooBar in the "21st century" [noun]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Proposals to rename: Below are the categories I nominate for renaming to remove the dash (note that some categories do not to have a 20th or 21st century subcategory): Hugo999 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Support renaming all of the above. For future reference, these all qualify for speedy renaming, reason C2B. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Speedy rename per C2B. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The proposals may as well stay on this page now (not speedy): Hugo999 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The hyphen is not needed here. There is no adective. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename. Qzekrom (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ohio State University Research, Publications, and Experiments[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic. It appears to be a mix of research facilities (that could be a category, or a set of entries in a navbox, though would need to set a reasonable bar along the continuum from "subunit" to "affiliated institute" to "collaboratively controlled" to "independent by used by"). But then also it has all sorts of other things that are somehow associated with OSU (an island that has among all sorts of other things a research site, a piece of software created by OSU students, a way of drawing chemical diagrams that was created by a professor there--named for him not for the school). DMacks (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This group is needed to complie all research, publications, and experiments done by this university. A similar category should also be created for other universities. It us to help easing search and group the same related work in one category. Research, publications, and experiments are the major functions of any universities and they deservea place as a category in universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohho (talkcontribs) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split This is bringing together disparate things. Publications should have enough content for a subcat of OSU. Research programs/institutes, etc can be another subcat. If that leaves anything it can be merged to the OSU category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Currencies introduced[edit]

Propose renaming:
127 by-year and by-decade subcats
Nominator's rationale: These are set categories. Per WP:SETCAT and WP:NCCAT#General_conventions, set categories should use the plural form.
(I think think this qualifies as a speedy renaming per WP:C2C, but the singular form has been used by the creator of the series and by @Hugo999 who has been expanding it. They may have reasons to object, so it seemed easier to bring this directly to a full discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree: I think that the plural is correct. I have added navigation templates and extra capacities to categories by year (many of them!) that only had two rather than four subcategories. So the only new categories I created were some by decade where the category by year previously did not have a decade subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]

February 18[edit]

Listing of the works of the atelier of the Maitre de Tronoen.[edit]

Delete Trailing stops make these very unlikely search terms. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Western Church[edit]

Undiscussed edit by SrpskiAnonimac deviating from langstanding consensus redirecting to Latin Church (except 2013-2016). Oughtn't it be changed back to Latin Church per the longest part of its history? PPEMES (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Listed of states listing the Kurdistan Workers Party as a terrorist group[edit]

Delete Obvious typographical error. Just not recent enough to be speedied. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Liste d'anticorps monoclonaux[edit]

Delete per WP:FORRED. No obvious connection of French to the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete, I think I created this redirect for previously existing reason. --محمود (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Pictures on the moon[edit]

Not the subject of the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Possibly re-targetable to Moon landing, or Moon landing conspiracy theories. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should bubbling in E: All of the above mean delete or disambiguate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete No way to identify a clear target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Which is why disambiguation pages are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Only if the thing is a thing, which "Pictures on the moon" is assuredly not. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No, disambiguation pages are for instances when one search term can refer to multiple topics - exactly what we have here. All these targets are about different meanings of pictures on the moon. Just because this isn't the best title for any of them doesn't mean it isn't a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Subchapter[edit]

Not mentioned at target page Chapter, which is a disambiguation page. Also, the term "subchapter" does not describe most of the topics at the target disambiguation page. Due to this reason/confusion, unless a more specific target is found, I recommend either retarget to wikt:subchapter or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Soft retarget to wikt:subchapter as no suitable target on wiki. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect might cause confusion. And I don't think a soft redirect is appropriate: it's not what they're designed for. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
@Shhhnotsoloud: What are redirects to Wiktionary designed for? What confusion exactly? --Bejnar (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bejnar: The guidance at {{Wiktionary redirect}} says Do not place it on every possible word and this redirect has little traffic. Wikipedia does not have an article on this subject and a reader is better off without the redirect and using the search function to find occurences in the encyclopedia. Confusion may arise because the disambiguation page target does not mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you meant that the redirect to Wiktionary would cause confusion. While usually the target ought to at least mention the referring concept, I still don't think that there would be much confusion from the existing redirect (for those with a reasonable grasp of English). I agree with the guidance that every word does not require a redirect to Wiktionary, but disagree that that's not what they're designed for. In this case a Wiktionary redirect would not add much for those with a reasonable grasp of English. --Bejnar (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see the target to be astonishing for someone searching for "subchapter", and I think it's plausible that multiple entries at that disambiguation can be/have subchapters. I oppose retargeting it to Wiktionary because I don't find that solution to be helpful nor useful. The entry literally says A subsection of a chapter, which should already be obvious to anyone who has enough knowledge of the English language to be searching the word. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Tavix that nobody is going to be astonished by this and there is no better target, including the Wiktionary entry. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

.9[edit]

Wrong concept, 0.9 is not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Retarget to 0.9, which has a hatnote to the current target. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This would have been a straightforwardly suitable target if it were an article about the number 0.9. But it's about a French rap album whose title is "0.9" (and as far as I know, French uses different decimal notation from English, so that title most likely doesn't refer to the number .9). – Uanfala (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
.4 should redirect to 0.4 disambiguation as per the recent RFD. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1 or 0.999.... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 0.9 disambiguation. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is old enough and has been pointing here long enough to justify a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 14:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be a disambiguation, since 0.9 could refer to the fractional number. I've adjusted the album hatnote to include that in the meantime. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Coccinia Indica[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. Was formerly abredirect to Gourd. May qualify for WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Colo(u)r[edit]

Unnecessary redirect. The related redirect, Colour, already exists. Steel1943 (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a very logical search term for someone who doesn't know whether our article will be at the British or American English spelling or a hybrid like this one. It's also possible that non-native speakers will encounter this and want to know what it means. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think there is enough usage of the term spelled like that to the point where this is a useful redirect. For example, Blu (rapper) has an album titled "Her Favorite Colo(u)r" and several color articles make reference to "ISCC-NBS Dictionary of Colo(u)r Names" or "The Mother of All HTML Colo(u)r Charts". -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hallucinogenic effects of banana peels[edit]

Considering that the current target is a fictional substance and [mthe article Banana peel does not seem to contain the information referenced in the redirect, possibly the best course of action for this redirect is "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep. The subject of the article is exactly about this topic so that will be exactly what someone using this is looking for. The article clearly states it is fictional so there is no risk of misinformation or misleading anybody. I don't understand why this has even been nominated - it fulfils exactly the purpose of a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The target is about a specific hoax, not about the hallucinogenic effects of banana peels in general. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Despite searching I have not been able to find anything related to the hallucinogenic effects of banana peel that wasn't related to this hoax (banana peel has no hallucinogenic effects). Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mixed peel[edit]

Until recently, this redirect targeted Candied fruit. The redirect is vague in that it does not specify what type of "peel" it refers. It doesn't necessarily refer to "fruit peel" either. Delete as vague. Steel1943 (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment "Mixed peel" is not vague - it is the exact name for a product that is sold in every British supermarket with a home baking section I've been to. It always refers to the candied peel of citrus fruits - usually oranges and lemons. A one minute bit of WP:BEFORE would have told you that. It seems to be a type of Succade (a term I'm not familiar with), but isn't it seems mentioned in any article currently. I'll ping the food and drink project, as this is definitely something we should have an article or section on somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hougham[edit]

I was going to use RM to move Hougham, Lincolnshire here but since there was also a CP with this name maybe this should become a DAB instead, note that a redirect exists at Hougham, Kent so "Hougham" could easily be the DAB which could link to it. However we could indeed move the Lincolnshire article here since that is also a village and is what comes up in Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Convert to disambiguation page, in addition to those two, add the rail station and battery -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page could assist with forming consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note I've created a disambiguation page at Hougham (disambiguation). Google results clearly show that the Lincolnshire village is parimary, so I decided on that title rather than drafting it below the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Bres (comics)[edit]

There doesn't appear to be any information about this character anymore. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Retarget to Solarr, where he is mentioned. BOZ (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that the nominator merged that article into List of Marvel Comics characters: S after my reply here. BOZ (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (utc) 20:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Multiplayer game[edit]

Previous RfD When I was doing some copy-edits for a video game-related article it left me scratching my head that Multiplayer games didn't have an article here since both Multiplayer and Multiplayer game redirected to this 3-sentence blurb. it took me a bit to realize that Multiplayer video game was its own article. It looks like it ended up here as a result of a messy RfM. I think it would be worth a discussion about a disambiguation page here. In the meantime I dropped an About template in the relevant section in Game. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Multiplayer was supposed to be redirecting to Multiplayer video game, as it has for years. For some reason, 93 redirected it to Game#Multiplayer earlier this month, after Multiplayer game, a separate topic, was finally merged there. I don't know why that was done, but I've restored it to the correct primary topic. Prior to an unauthorized AWB bot run that was only partially reverted in November, there were over 3500+ links for Multiplayer. The primary topic is clear. There's merit for a Multiplayer (disambiguation) page, however. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    I've gone ahead and created Multiplayer (disambiguation) and hat noted. -- ferret (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    Not all multiplayer games are video games. Multiplayer and Multiplayer game essentially refer to the same thing, so I changed the target of Multiplayer to the target of Multiplayer game, which was Game#Multiplayer. 93 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    You're right, they aren't. But there's a clear primary topic here. -- ferret (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I hadn't seen the history of the article before I changed the target. A hat to non-video games on the target would suffice. 93 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: I completed the merge PonyToast refers to, and its also correct that this was in response to the result of a requested merge discussion with a formal result. The about hatnote in that section is a great idea, and I think that its sufficient to link to that important subset of multiplayer games, the Multiplayer video game. I think that this is sufficient disambiguation. However, I wouldn't mind it others thought that a distinct DAB page was a better idea. Klbrain (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert to separate article Multiplayer game should be a separate topic, as before, rather than a redirect, as there are numerous types of popular multiplayer game including board games, card games, and party games; while the concept has special characteristics in economic game theory. Andrew D. (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No opposition from me. I think it's messy to implement a merge nearly 3 years after it was discussed. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert to separate article largely per WP:Split. The original separate article has a good ammount of encyclopedic information that's missing from Game#Multiplayer. There's too much to say about the Games to fit it all in to a tiny number of articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll have a bit later--someone please remind me to come chat about this. Also to involve the users at the merge discussion, @SMcCandlish, No such user, and Jujutsuan:. --Izno (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Multi-player, Multi-player game, Multiplayer, Multiplayer game, and the Single... equivalents should all go to subsections of Game, since the terms are not limited to video games in particular.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @SMcCandlish: Strong disagree. A clear primary topic and usage exists here. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
      • You've already stated your case. You don't need to restate it every time someone states an opposing one; the fact that they're opposing is already self-evident. But if you want to argue about it in depth, I'll make a rebuttal case: The VG usage is only "primary" among people who like video games and have little interest in others. To the innumerable people who play other games (card games, board games, table-top RPGs, and more=physical activities like snooker and bowling) – either in addition to or instead of playing video games – the broader usage is stark obviously the primary one, and it couldn't possibly be otherwise in the grand, encyclopedic context. This is not TwitchyThumbsPedia, despite an overabundance of video-gaming cruft articles perhaps suggesting otherwise. Please remember that en.WP is written for everyone in the world who can understand English, not just affluent Westerners who can burn US$40 avg. apiece on video games, or who are young and tech-savvy enough to want them. [PS: I say also this as someone does actually play video games, and even writes mods for Elder Scrolls games, and edits several wikis pertaining to those games. But I'm also a pool player, card player, tabletop RPGer, etc., and not blinded by a single-minded VG obsession, unlike far too many of our younger contributors.]  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No comment on separate article, but if it's not a separate article, targeting to multiplayer video game is best. The term itself isn't really used otherwise (as far as I know), due to the nature of non-video games — the default with board, card, etc. games is multiplayer, since it's not possible to have a non-human opponent player, so "single-player" or "solitaire" games are the exceptions that get a special name. Non-electronic games are almost always designed for multi-human play, and the exceptions require you to compete against some goal (e.g. in Patience you're competing against the deck, so to speak) or to play a multi-human game in an odd manner (play Monopoly by yourself, and the results and strategy are radically different from playing against other humans; play poker by yourself, and it makes no sense). For that reason, multi-player is basically assumed with non-video games unless it's specified to the contrary, while it's not at all that way with video games: only in video games does one need to specify "multiplayer", so "multiplayer" most commonly means video games, unless I'm missing something. Nyttend (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • No, for a general game, it is multiplayer if there are several players, i.e. more than two. There are several classes of games – solitaire (e.g. patience); two-player (e.g. chess); multiplayer (e.g. poker); team/partnership games (e.g. bridge); mega/massive games with large numbers of players (e.g. Wikipedia). The case of more than two sides is quite significant in game theory because you can have shifting coalitions which make them more difficult to analyse than the classic two-player case. Videogames are a corner case because they tend to have an AI running other player positions. If there are no other AI/human players then they are a simulation/puzzle/pastime rather than a game. Andrew D. (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect to Game#Multiplayer per SMC. Editors interested in having a separate article on the concept may wish to consider contributing either to the aforementioned article with reliable sources such that we can later WP:SPLIT it out into its own topic if necessary, or to the closely-related article identified at the RM, which was Game classification. Users looking for multiplayer video game are quickly pointed to the article at the redirect target. --Izno (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

1 E303[edit]

Redirecting random numbers are WP:COSTLY B dash (talk) 05:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Do me feminism[edit]

Delete. May be synonymous terms, but the target article gives no indication that is the case. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Blackwashing[edit]

WP:RFD#DELETE reason #8

This term is not a synonym for Color-blind casting (CBC). CBC has no info about "blackwashing". It appears that "blackwashing" is meant to be a counter to whitewashing, but whitewashing would not be the same as CBC which is when race/ethnicity does not play a factor in casting.

Moreover, there are no RS I can find that support the existence of "blackwashing". Rather all the sources I see are basically saying it doesn't exist and is just a term used to "refute" whitewashing (c.f., "alt-left"). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

0.99 = 1[edit]

Wrong formula, 0.99 does not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects don't have to be correct, and anyone searching for this is clearly looking for the content at the target which will educate them and clear up the misconceptions/misunderstandings they have. It should be tagged as incorrect though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as inaccurate since this 0.99 is ninety-nine one hundredths, which is not 1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but as I explain directly above that is not relevant: The redirect serves to educate people that they are wrong and why, rather than being actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this to be a plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Since the title of the article is abstract, we should be a bit more generous for redirects. It certainly isn't astonishing given that the article explains what the answer actually is. -- Tavix (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

0.9 equals 1[edit]

Wrong formula, 0.9 does not equal to 0.999... (1) B dash (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems an unlikely search term. Lithopsian (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and consistent with similar redirects that also don't equal 1. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects don't have to be correct, and anyone searching for this is clearly looking for the content at the target which will educate them and clear up the misconceptions/misunderstandings they have. It should be tagged as incorrect though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete as inaccurate since this 0.9 is nine tenths, which is not 1. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Indeed, but as I explain directly above that is not relevant: The redirect serves to educate people that they are wrong and why, rather than being actively unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this to be a plausible {{R from incorrect name}}. Since the title of the article is abstract, we should be a bit more generous for redirects. It certainly isn't astonishing given that the article explains what the answer actually is. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mó jìng[edit]

Redirect from a foreign language title to a subject unrelated to that language per WP:R#DELETE 8. Created by vandal, so possibly inaccurate. May impede search for Mozi (book). Certes (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Zeitgeist: Beyond the Pale[edit]

I can't find any evidence that this film was ever released - it has been 'anticipated' since about 2013. Neither Peter Joseph (the redirect target) nor Zeitgeist (film series) mention this film. Leschnei (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete along with the second one, which I added. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Where the World Meets[edit]

Delete No clear connection between redirect and target. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Where Do I Begin? (remix)(Shirley Bassey single)[edit]

Delete per WP:RDAB because of the missing space. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Coming soon - Ricky Martin[edit]

Delete Created for four minutes to hold history related to the target article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

February 18[edit]

Template:Railway line header[edit]

Propose merging Template:Railway line header, Template:BS-header, Template:BS-table and Template:BS-table1 with Template:Routemap.
These templates have been deprecated since the creation of {{BS-map}} in 2011, and should already have been replaced by {{BS-map}} or by {{Routemap}} (which is newer than {{BS-map}} and has several advantages and additional features). A plurality of route diagrams on the English Wikipedia use {{Routemap}}. {{BS-map}} is also currently nominated for merging with {{Routemap}}.

As the nominator, I support replacing the templates with {{Routemap}}. If the discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the templates should be replaced manually after using the Routemap module to convert each diagram; fixing errors and stylistic issues should be expected. I would also support manual replacement of the nominated templates with either {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}}. Bot replacement would be unusually difficult due to the use of the pre-2011 templates through {{Infobox route diagram}}, especially if there is an expectation to update diagrams to current conventions (navbar, continuation icons, text placement/size, etc.). Jc86035 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. Useddenim (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support replacement with {{Routemap}}, as the former is tagged as superseded. --Gonnym (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:R to AfC namespace[edit]

Proposed deletion - unused redirect template, marked as deprecated ~4 years ago. Gonnym (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:FCC history cards[edit]

Proposed deletion - This template was deprecated last year by its creator and only contributor as the FCC stopped updating the HTML page which this template links to. If a link is needed, it should be replaced with a direct link instead. See User talk:DrChuck68#FCC history cards and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Template:FCC history cards for more details. Gonnym (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:BS-map[edit]

Proposed replacing {{BS-map}} (and its supporting templates) with {{Routemap}} - since 2015 this template has been marked as superseded by {{Routemap}} as the newer template has shorter loading time, smaller template size and displays correctly on mobile. Since there is no point in maintaining two templates which do the same thing AND as mobile usage has grown in those 3 years, current usages should be converted to the newer template. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template/Archive 11#RfC: Conversion of route diagram templates to Template:Routemap format. Pinging participants at that discussion: @Jc37, Jc86035, Sameboat, SMcCandlish, Redrose64, Useddenim, Epicgenius, Mjroots, and Lamberhurst:. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous consensus that editors are free to use whichever they prefer, and that diagrams should not be convereted from BS to Routemap format without good reason (usually technical). Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That isn't what the previous discussion resulted in so please do not present it as such. Also, as stated in the template itself, there are technical reasons why to convert - this template loads slower and displays incorrectly on mobile. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Also, templates using {{Routemap}} are easier to modify, as it is not necessary to change the supporting templates when columns are added/removed. Useddenim (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not yet. @Gonnym: It would be more appropriate to deprecate and replace all of the BS-table templates ({{BS-table}}, {{BS-table1}} and {{Railway line header}}) first, as they have been deprecated since mid-2011 (originally to be replaced by {{BS-map}}). Overall, {{Routemap}} is now used more than the BS-series templates (despite only being introduced in mid-2015), being used directly on 5,127 pages, whereas the older templates are only used directly on 4,418 pages. {{BS-map}} is used directly on 2,642 pages, and the BS-table templates are used directly on 2,079 pages. (All counts are approximate.) While I would personally still prefer the complete replacement of the BS-series templates, there are a small but significant number of editors who are much more familiar with the older templates (as demonstrated by the 2016 RfC, which I initiated). Furthermore, manual replacement would still be required for almost all of the templates (despite the existence of the Lua conversion function) due to changes in diagram style/icon conventions over time and small incompatibilities in function between the templates (e.g. inline text, slight icon overlap differences). The issues with mobile devices would probably remain, though mainly because no one has implemented a fix yet. Jc86035 (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    The replacement should be done to all sub-templates at the same time as they are all dependent on each other. Regarding the manual operation, no-one said this would be done by a bot if one cannot do it, but by placing it in the holding cell, it would mean more eyes on it and eventually get done. --Gonnym (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Gonnym: The only overall dependency, as far as I'm aware, is that all of the old templates require the {{BS}} series of templates to function. {{BS-map}} only requires those row templates and is otherwise functionally separate from the pre-2011 templates. Jc86035 (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    That might be, but that isn't one template. Looking at the first 5 templates - that's {{BS}}, {{BS2}}, {{BS3}}, {{London-railway-routemap}}, {{BS10}}, {{BS5-2}}, {{BS3-2}}, {{BS-2}}, so I wouldn't say there aren't more dependencies. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - both templates are still in common use. Deletion proposals should only occur once content has been migrated. Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Still way too many templates in use right now. Cards84664 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the goal but not this tactic; deprecate and replace dependent templates first, per Jc86035's detailed explanation. This is a WP:THEREISNODEADLINE matter. Not everyone is 100% happy with everything about the technologically better base template, so let's give the community time to work on it, adjust, hash out more pros and cons, etc. PS: I also agree that some early opposers are misrepresenting the earlier discussion (not out of ill will, but just taking away from it what they want to hear). The actual amount of participation in it was too low to be statistically meaningful anyway. Regardless, a "no consensus" RfC cannot possibly be "previous consensus" against this TfD or the underlying idea. That's like concluding that your neighbor is your best friend simply because he's not tried to kill you.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Christian leader[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox Christian leader with Template:Infobox religious biography.
Almost all other religious leader infoboxes have been merged and time has come for this too. Plus WP:INFOCOL. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep I see no convincing reason reason to merge these two infoboxes. The Christian leader infobox has lots of unique parameters and seems to do a good job of what it intends, fitting a square peg into the round hole of the major infobox to me has no benefit other than making things harder for readers and editors alike. WP:INFOCOL is an essay only. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. It would make sense to use the religious biography for Christian leaders, but at the moment they're radically different; you'd have to modify the use of a good number of parameters (e.g. I suppose the "lineage" would represent a bishop's apostolic succession, but I'm unclear), and a good number of other parameters in the Christian leader don't have anything corresponding in the religious biography. The templates have comparable subjects, but the current structure is very unfriendly to a merge. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - In theory, theory and practice are the same: and in practice, they're different. The Christian box is very different from the more general box, for good reason (there are masses of Christian-only structures in the world), and there is no good reason for or advantage to be gained by changing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep - way too much that's unique and per yttend and Chiswick Chap. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep - the two templates are different as elaborated above per Nyttend and Chiswick Chap, and are not similar enough to be merged. One seems to be a broad or general infobox while the other is an elaboration that applies to individuals such as bishops as opposed to religious superiors and the like. The two are just too different to be merged, since there are some parameters in one that cannot be applied to the other template either due to irrelevance or incompatibility. Both templates do a good job of doing what they were created for separately, and I see no credible reason to merge the two since they are far too unique, and work well apart. Lord Sidious 82 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:XBIZ Best Actress Couples[edit]

An unnecessary cross categorisation. The award is minor and lacks a stand-alone article. Compare with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 9#Template:Pink Grand Prix: 1989. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete Minor award in minor awards. We don't need templates for everything. Nigej (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

18 February 2019[edit]

Kingman Group (closed)[edit]

User:Red_marquis/sandbox/Dead_to_the_World_Tour_sandbox[edit]

User:Red_marquis/sandbox/Dead_to_the_World_Tour_sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Nick deleted page despite consensus in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox. Page is my sandbox that I am using to work on an article. User:RhinosF1 said I violated copyvio. Red marquis (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As Advised at MfD, you can't copy text exactly in to Wikipedia. That makes it a copyvio. Did you get the offline editor working? RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 07:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I did. I'm still challenging the decision, which strikes me as unilaterally done and, as User:Alfie pointed out, what I did was nowhere near as egregiously harmful as made out to be. -Red marquis (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a long look at the page to see if there was any alternative to deletion and couldn't see any alternative, but I've asked a couple of my fellow administrators for a second opinion, to see if there's any way we can remove the offending material and restore your sandbox. I think such a possibility is remote, so don't get your hopes up, but we will do what we can do. As I said elsewhere, we take no pleasure in deleting material being used to write high quality encyclopedic content, particularly for technical reasons such as copyright issues. Nick (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Nick, I have to agree, deleting as a copyvio is not something we want to see. Especially when it's obvious you put hard work into it. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Manson wiki was not one of the 8 URLs I requested a copyright review for violations of due to their copyright policy and the fact users ponited out they may have copied from wikipedia instead of the other way round. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't followed the full history. Could you post that list of 8 URLs here. I'd be happy to look at those too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
As pointed out at the MfD, Earwig's copyvio tool indicated an issue with a single Desert News source, which could have been easily removed. had already been removed by Oshwah. The other 7 sources listed were in the 30% range (copyvio unlikely). Further examination revealed those 7 sources to have been flagged primarily as a result of brief direct quotations, which isn't copyvio according to policy. The fact that the sandbox was deleted before the copyvio team even had a chance to investigate it and against consensus is a massive red flag for me, especially when the legitimacy of the copyvio claim regarding those 7 other sources had already been questioned. Homqeostasis07 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019_February_12 for the list all were in Earwig's Red Range as 'Violation Likely' not in the 30% range as claimed above. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I checked during the MfD, and the Desert News source was the only one in the red range. Everything else was triggered by either random sentence fragments, album, song and other associated titles, or bits of direct quotes, none of which could be claimed as copyvio. A review by the copyvio team would've confirmed this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I will allow the admin team to review this. Nick obviously believed this but I'll let other admins decide. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Nick’s explanation on his talk. There was simply too much to sort through to make revdel and individual excision feasible, making wholesale deletion the only option. Whether it’s G12 or IAR “This is the only way to get an outcome clearly needed under policy”, the end result was necessary, and is not subject to consensus at XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The one genuine copyvio source had already been excised prior to deletion. Any other alleged instances are disputed. Meaning that the overriding issue here is that the draft was deleted prior to a review by the copyvio team being completed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Aprimo (closed)[edit]