Knowledge

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The Music Industry Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organisation failing WP:ORGCRITE due to a lack of significant independent coverage on the company.

Speedy declined in 2015 for containing an independent source, a page about an event they held, although this appears to be fairly routine and I do not believe it indicates significance; just for events occurring in Chicago today, there are 270 very similar pages on that site. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete My PROD was contested without comment or improvement. No third party WP:RS to show notability and I could not find any. Fails WP:NORG. shoy (reactions) 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. I have viewed your comments and will make the corrections. Also, please kindly consider that this organization is encyclopedic and is a stub. Thank you for your attention and feedback. Newsmediasource (talk)
• Delete Article has no significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. No problem with this article being placed as a draft in the creator's space.Sandals1 (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. My own searching failed to discover any WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. Please strongly consider keeping or an alternative to deletion. Many good articles started their Wikilife as a stub identical to this one and still exist. -- Newsmediasource (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Newsmediasource (talk · contribs) has already voted 'keep' above; not sure what continued lobbying is meant to accomplish. They also have not responded to a COI notice of a week ago. See full edit history. 2601:188:180:1481:7868:6144:7C5D:484A (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. I'll update the page to make clear that it is a disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

No references. May be the same organisation as Easterseals (U.S.) Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This ought to be converted into a disambiguation page with links to the U.S. organization, the Canadian organization, and the labels. There may be related organizations in Australia, Mexico, and Puerto Rico that are likely to be notable and worth adding to the disamguation page once articles have been created. I cannot tell whether there is an umbrella organization that brings together the different national organizations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per Eastmain as a disambiguation page for Easterseals (U.S.), Easter Seals (Canada), Easter seals (philately), and of course any others that may still be created. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 22:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 22:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Easterseals (U.S.) This article has no sources and a redirect to the well-known organization that started with this name seems best. I'll admit I'm not 100% sure these are the same organization, although the article's link to the page implies so. I also admit that the redirect target suffers from a lack of independent sources, but one issue at a time.Sandals1 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Junior Boy's Own (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This record label does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per several source searches. Sources found are only providing name checks and passing mentions. North America 12:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll agree that there's little in the way of information available online, but Junior Boy's Own is unquestionably one of the key labels to emerge from the UK's acid house scene of the late 80s and early 90s, with many charting singles and albums from notable groups. I'd be very surprised indeed if there weren't articles about the label itself in print versions of various dance magazines like Mixmag and Muzik from the 1990s, before the internet. Could arguably form part of a wider article about the Boy's Own collective that started out as football fans who discovered dance music and put out twelve issues of a fanzine, before going on to found the record label – see here for an overview of the Boy's Own story . Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Björk, Chemical Brothers & Underworld released albums through this label. Just check the link at warpozio (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a half-page entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music, which is extracted from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music - inclusion in a print encyclopedia is good enough for inclusion here. --Michig (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep A 1998 Billboard article describes the label as "one of clubland's most revered labels". In addition there is the encyclopedia entry noted by Michig, and a small but substantial amount of coverage in Spin, CMJ, and the Guardian. It appears that CORPDEPTH is indeed met here. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Gui & Elaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable musical group with no indications of meeting WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. Of the 8 sources cited at time of listing: 2 are links to pages of song lyrics, 1 is a Facebook link for the music school one of the members attended, 1 is the website for the youth group the members belong to, and 1 is a link to an album on iTunes. Of the sources that actually reference the group, the NewReleaseToday article is WP:UGC ("Entry lasted edited by guiroper on 08.09.18") and the two Cross Rythyms pages also appear to be opinion/submission pieces ("The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms. Any expressed views were accurate at the time of publishing but may or may not reflect the views of the individuals concerned at a later date").

PROD was removed without comment by page creator. Additionally, the creator of the article claims to be one of the members of the group (see edit summary here). RA0808 _contribs 19:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. RA0808 _contribs 19:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  19:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Hello dear editor/contributor for Knowledge. I'm here to state the veracity of this music or group page on Knowledge. All information presented in there is real and doubled checked by me myself as one of the artists along with Elaine. Secondly, I don't believe in the state of being awarded somehow to be notable and eligiable in all I do in life and much more professionaly in my music carrier. Hope you will reconsider my submission and contribution for the amazing content source as it has been Knowledge.

guiroper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guiroper (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge is not the place for WP:SELF PROMOTION. DerbyCountyinNZ 04:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - Delete as per nom. The group does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, lacking substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as group fails WP:GNG. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

oppose/keep the music group fits as their contribution to the music. Non promotion as mentioned above is seen in the article. Reliable sources is surely provided in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guiroper (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Guiroper: None of the sources you provided meet the definition of a reliable source that Knowledge uses and, in fact, most of the sources you cited do not have anything to do with you and your sister as a band. I can appreciate that you are proud of having created such uplifting music together with your sister, but Knowledge is not the place for this because you simply are not notable enough. RA0808 _contribs 19:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• @RA0808: Unfortunately I have to desagree with you. I have double checked other musical artists who are in the same sort of position as us and they have a Knowledge page. Why would be different with us? I appreciate your points regarding to being awarded and nominated for something to be on Knowledge, but this is not our case and this does not make us less than others. Hope you take this into consideration as well. I tried my best and there' nothing else I can do to improve even more this page of ours. There was even another user these days who re-wrote about us on the actual Gui & Elaine page. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guiroper (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable record label. Per source searches, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sources are either primary or only provide very fleeting passing mentions and name checks. North America 15:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing on google, the refs in the article don't give notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above, unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing 12:27, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ho Hum Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per source searches, another non-notable record label that only receives very minor passing mentions and name checks. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America 15:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I took a look and wasn't able to find any coverage that would help the label satisfy WP:NCORP. Teemu08 (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete hohum. No refs in the article, google not offering anything. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable hip hop group, per source searches. Does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Could be redirected to Keith Knight (cartoonist). North America 15:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 15:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 15:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Google not showing anything, the article says they are unsigned. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Andy B. Hodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO or WP:GNG as I can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company he founded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Article sourcing clearly intended to drive attention to the company and product. Bakazaka (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 12:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 12:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 12:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America 12:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. A defunct record label, the one ref leads to a staff page, google and news not showing anything. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable record label that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 12:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America 12:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing on google or news I can see. No refs in the article, a stub. Szzuk (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable software that does not meet WP:GNG. North America 11:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 08:00, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and NPROF. Local Imam/teacher. Sourced to organizations he's affiliated with, a speaker profile, a the mailofislam website. In my BEFORE I was able to find an individual with the same name (but seems to be based in Sudan) with a quote on terror suspects - . It also seems there is a lt. General in Sudan with the same name. I was not able to find much on this individual. Using Mail of Islam to claim descent from Abu Bakr in our voice seems promotional. Icewhiz (talk) 11:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as PROMO. Sourcing on page is PRIMARY. My searches found no independent sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• delete I don't see the sourcing to meet the GNG and there's nothing to show any other notability standard is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

This poorly sourced puff-piece article seems to be stretching to meet WP:N. I'm not sure if his lengthy public address announcing career in San Diego or managing a bowl game association for 14 years meet it — I'm kind of leaning on the side of no, though I'm not sure enough to PROD — but if they do, the article is in need of dire tone and sourcing help. Raymie (t • c) 04:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• delete Some local notability, but doesn't have the coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• ’’’Delete’’’ Announcers don’t get a presumed GNG pass. ~EDDY ~ 22:24, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 16:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Promotional article for non-notable music producer previously deleted by AfD here. The sources are terrible, and what few of them could maybe be considered reliable don't have in-depth coverage of the subject. None of the won awards appear to be notable enough to merit inclusion by WP:NBIO instead of WP:GNG.

Note: It was also speed-kept the first time it was nominated for AfD, but this was because the nominator was banned for sockpuppeting (amusingly, the one editor who managed to speak in defense of the article before it was procedurally closed then was also banned for socking). _signed, Rosguill 01:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

comment It appears that the article's creator has attempted to blank this page, but has not made any arguments about why it should be kept. _signed, Rosguill 18:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The article is a recreation of a previously deleted article by a new author. In the recreated article there are reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject and passes the standard for WP:N and WP:MUSIC respectively.

Note: The first time it was nominated for speedy deletion, the concerns were it lacked references and independent sources of the subject. The second time it was nominated for speedy deletion, was to contest the deletion why it should be kept because it was previously deleted by a consensus decision. view log. The admin later removed the nomination tag when the article talk page was updated with the reasons why it should not be deleted. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

None of the publications currently cited appear to be reliable sources, and several of them are named as being outright not reliable. The only reliable source that I see is the Vanguard News article, which is a mere mention of a song that the subject produced, with no mention of the subject. A significant amount of these articles are similarly mere-mentions of projects that the subject has supposedly worked on. _signed, Rosguill 05:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

More reliable sources have been added to the article and there were over 7 reliable sources that were in reliable sources already cited in the article that made mention of the subject as a Notable act. Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO, as I always say, being nominated for awards like City People Awards and Nigeria Entertainment Awards does not confer notability, especially when such category is not primarily for the subject, but a song he has produced. He was not even listed in the credits by the awarding body. "Run Mad" will be a notable song for Knowledge, but does not mean everyone on the crew for a notable song deserves an article. His nomination for the The Headies 2013 would have conferred notability, if it was for him, but its still for the song. Same way, we can have a notable film, in which all the actors are not notable or a notable actor that acted in a non-notable film.HandsomeBoy (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• comment the subject was nominated for Nigeria music Producer of the year in 2016 and 2018 this category is primarily for the subjects. the articleJay_Pizzle clearly contains references to other Notable awards he has been nominated for. He has been a featured subject on reliable broadcasting networks Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per HandsomeBoy. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. The consensus is not to delete, therefore default keep. A merge or other editorial actions are of course possible. Tone 19:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

No WP:Reliable sources that this topic is WP:Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. This is interesting. I completely agree and I think this applies to a very high percentage of such characters: they lack reliable secondary independent sourcing, and even if they "exist" in a bunch of other comics and movies, that doesn't mean they are of encyclopedic value. Not without secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge into either List of Marvel Comics characters: S or Kree. BOZ (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Updating: Based on the sources presented below by Jhenderson777 and Den..., I believe we now have enough to meet the WP:GNG, so I am affirming my Keep above, and I imagine FreeKnowledgeCreator and TriiipleThreat would concur, and possibly some of the others as well. BOZ (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: 22 references to primary sources, three references to unreliable sources, and one reference to Screener for TV episode listings. This article handily fails our notability guideline. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ATD: Article can be improved by regular editing. After a quick google search sources do exist, they just aren’t being used.—-TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Wait--so we have three keeps. The first actually says "if sources can be found", and lists no sources. The second says "per first", so that also means nothing. The third says "oh there's Google hits". Drmies (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete: I could not find enough third-party, reliable sources to prove notability for this to have a standalone article. I do not believe a merge would be helpful, as I am uncertain if there is enough information support by third-party, reliable sources to use. BOZ's keep argument is purely on the condition "if sources can be found". If FreeKnowledgeCreator agrees with him, then they should list the references here to prove notability. Same goes to TriiipleThreat. Aoba47 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Kree, as the character is relevant and important to the topic and not all aspects within an article require to meet GNG if the article as a whole does. If the reliable sources mentioned are provided, then keep. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Kree. Secondary sources are hard to come by for this character (partly because of rampant speculation about a future film incarnation), but the character is extremely notable within the fiction. Removing the information entirely would be detrimental to the 45-50 articles that refer to it in-line. The proposed target already refers to the subject some 58 times without providing any history or context. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Upon further review, the Kree-Skrull War section of Kree provides enough context for the character already. I think a simple Redirect is sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• I am leaning on Keep. Many news result on the character lately. Such as IGN describing them. "The Kree are ruled by a leader called the Supreme Intelligence, a being who's basically little more than a floating head with almost limitless brainpower. The Supreme Intelligence's will is enforced by a group of powerful warriors/space cops called Accusers." I personally think they are separate of Kree so I don't think they should be merged there. Most of the sources are likely MCU speculations (like Argento Surfer said) or descriptions but still that helps prove notability for the future. Jhenderson 15:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Merging fancruft to fancruft still leaves it as fancruft. The Kree article is not in a much better state. This should be deleted as non-notable, Wikia caliber material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • AfD isn't clean up, and a high quality Kree article would necessarily include significant information about the Supreme Intelligence. I think WP:PRESERVE applies here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:PRESERVE is heavily misused to preserve fictional minutia. People seem to miss the part about not preserving things that are wholly WP:OR or at least primary sourced with no secondary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Are you implying that I'm misusing it here, and that a finished article on the Kree would not include information on the Supreme Intelligence? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. It is true that the article relies heavily on primary sources and as such it can be portrayed as original research, but here are two secondary sources, which are also scholarly analyses, that has tilted me toward keeping it: Darowski and Weiner. Den... (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The character is a major supervillain and so covered in numerous works including the following.Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

1. The Ages of the Avengers
2. Marvelous Mythology
3. 100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
4. The Comic Book Heroes
5. The Comics Journal
6. Comic Book Creativity as Displaced Aggression
7. The Supervillain Book
8. Marvel Universe

When did TCJ cover the Supreme Intelligence? (I'm not skeptical, just surprised.) Argento Surfer (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

2005. Andrew D. (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, more than notable enough. Kree is absurdly long as it is and should not be bloated further. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep article on notable comic book character. Merging into another article that is already extremely long does not seem practical. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:14, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Wikirank.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

an unremarkable website, the article has been created in multiple Wikipedias in the past week by same user or same ip address with same text and same references Mardetanha (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 10:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, notability is proven by sources --31.0.43.182 (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, article contains references to reliable and scientific sources. Knowledge has about 300 different language editions and rules do not prohibit the translation and transfer of the information to other language editions. Currently, the article has only about 20 language versions. For comparison, nominator user profile (Mardetanha) contains about 240 language versions and mostly without translation ;) --PolskaNauka (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, multilinguality of the article cannot be a reason for deletion. For example, there are a lot of commercial products with over 20 (Tesla Model 3), 30 (Audi A4), 40 language versions (Ford Mustang). Only in 2010s automobiles category there are over 1000 articles, and a lot of them have various language versions. Unlike these and other products, wikirank.net is non-profit and research project. Its importance is proven by sources. --188.146.235.91 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

to closing admins, same user is voting to keep the article with different Ip adress Mardetanha (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, the service is described in the scientific literature, recognized by educational institutions as a tool for quality assessment of Knowledge, noted as an important finding in Wikimedia Research, and has been presented at international conferences several times. If necessary, I can add additional information to the article. --VeronikaAZ (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Delete many of the references aren't about this project but are to other academic papers in the field; it reeks of a deliberate attempt to pad notability of a project that does not have notability. The only mention I saw was one paper which mentions in passing that one of the authors is working on WikiRank. This is almost certainly created by a person with a WP:COI based on their creating this in 20 languages at once. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Usage in academic papers isn't enough to establish notability; we need people writing about Wikirank. Mackensen (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Usage as the primary method of research in multiple scientific papers is a justification for notability (but whether this is in other WP's is a very peripheral argument--except that that the notability standards of deWP are higher than ours, and this is unchallenged there. I trust themon topics like this. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Previously deleted in 2013, G4ed in 2014. Lack of independent in-depth coverage of this Islamic vocal group. I am also nominating 4 albums released by the group which are almost entirely sourced from iTunes/Amazon/eMusic/CD Baby/etc. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Rhymes of Praise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

O' My Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Greatest Gift (Labbayk album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gratitude (Labbayk album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - Lots of proper British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) references for this British Islamic music group (Labbayk). Also keep the Knowledge pages of the albums of Labbayk because their albums are still available for sale/download and their Knowledge pages contain factually correct and relevant information. The band is still active and perform worldwide according to the website (http://labbayknasheeds.com), Facebook and other social media pages of Labbayk. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC) > — Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources ? Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Yes lots of coverage by independent sources, especially the BBC. Please check the list of references for foreign sources. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

An interview with one of the group members in BBC Asian Radio does not satisfy WP:ORGCRIT - specifically it is clearly not independent - being an interview with a group member.Icewhiz (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Huh? But Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi. Besides, there are other BBC interviews and foreign media coverage. Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen all that many interviews in my search - however regardless - interviews with group members is coverage that is not independent of the group. Per WP:ORGCRIT - we need SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep - I'll have to disagree with you. Isn't the BBC coverage impartial, significant and trustworthy enough? Even the significant third party news coverage (foreign press coverage) such as Kuwaiti News, is very reliable. Liberty Pedia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberty Pedia (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Struck duplicate !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Please !vote once (your bolded keeps). Icewhiz (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As with the group´s albums, the group is far from being notable. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:BAND #4. The group has performed some international concert tours. --Mhhossein 17:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

BAND-4 requires SIGCOV of the tour - which does not exist here.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Significant coverage is provided, as shown by the coverage of third party news outlets. Liberty Pedia (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Let us know about your definition of SIGCOV. Regards. --Mhhossein 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all The articles mostly cite the group, their (non-notable) label, websites selling their music, lyrics sites, and trivial mentions. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest found no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The deepest coverage is (presumably, it requires registration and a download, so I haven't listened to it) the 9 minute BBC Radio interview. It's a reliable source, and may be used within the constraints on primary sources, but as nom has already explained, does not contribute to notability (see also "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" in WP:BAND).

Proponents of keep have asserted the existence of significant third party news coverage without identifying any actual sources. The closest I see is , but that's a passing mention of the group in a press release by the organizers of the festival at which they were playing. It is not "non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Please note - According to WP:BAND - Musical ensembles or bands may be notable if they meet at least ONE of the following criteria:

1.) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

2.) Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

3.) Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

4.) Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

5.) Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

6.) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)

7.) Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Knowledge standards, including verifiability.

8.) Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

9.) Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.

10.)Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

11.)Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

12.)Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

Labbayk has met many of the above criteria, especially numbers 1, 4 and 12. Significant coverage of Labbayk, and/or members of Labbayk, by reliable independent sources includes coverage in UK Channel 4, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 4, Kuwait News Agency and Muslimness Blog. Liberty Pedia (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, and #12? No, no, and no.

• 4thought.tv on Channel 4 in the UK is a short film format in which a single speaker, in this case the leader of the band, gives their personal views on religion. It is a primary source, Masum in Masum's words, not independent coverage.
• BBC Asian Network is a radio interview. Again it's Masum in Masum's words, a primary source, and specifically excluded from consideration of notability by the first bullet point under criterion #1 of WP:BAND.
• BBC Radio 4 contains only about a minute and a half, starting at 18:30 minutes in, of Masum. He speaks briefly with the interviewer about nasheeds. He mentions in passing that his band exists and plays nasheeds, but the piece is not significant coverage of Labbayk (or of Masum).
• Kuwait News Agency is a press release from the organization employing Labbayk to play at their event, so not independent.
• Muslimness Blog is a group blog that "work with brilliant media groups" and whose motto is "shameless promotion". It is not in any way shape or form a reliable source.

--Worldbruce (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• All these bullet points by Worldbruce prove that Labbayk has met criterion number 12 of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 criteria.

• Another important point to remember is that Labbayk never performed in Kuwait.
• Masum is the lead singer of Labbayk, just like Bon Jovi.
• The BBC Radio 4 coverage is important because it shows how ISIS (Daesh) and other extremists used the music of Labbayk, as well as the music of other groups, in their propaganda materials without ever paying any royalties and in complete violation of the copyright. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Delete I spent some time evaluating notability of the subject. I have this gut feeling that they should be notable. The problem is, this gut feeling is not backed by any evidence. I cannot say Labbayk clearly pass any of the WP:BAND criterion; while they come very close to passing some of them. If deleted, which is more likely outcome, please also protect, so that next time we see this article is recreated again, that happens through AfC. --nafSadh

• If one reads the article thoroughly and checks all the references, as well as the websites and links that the references lead to thoroughly, then one will come to the conclusion that this band meets multiple criteria of WP:BAND and Labbayk only needs to meet one of the 12 WP:BAND criteria. As the discussion for deletion above shows, this article should not be deleted. Instead it should be expanded and improved. --Liberty Pedia (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• My opinion is after doing exactly that. The thing is, it doesn't pass any of those 12 criteria. Only you are saying it passes few of them, other editors disagrees. My gut feeling is to keep, but reasoning says delete. --nafSadh 15:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whatever happens to the band, the albums need to go: delete the albums for lack of coverage (and for being spamlink reservoirs). Drmies (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all 4 albums and the band. Problem is that the sources are largely from non-notable publications and are often promoting an event, not discussing the band in a significant way. Even the few better sourced, such as Kuwait News Agency, mentions the band in an article about a topic: Muslims in Switzerland rise up against islamophobia. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:BAND.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep there is independent, significant coverage of this topic, see the book that was added, for example. Leo1pard (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Leo1pard: You didn't add any content to Labbayk when you added the "independent book" as a source. Have you read the book? Can you provide a relevant quote from it?

When evaluating the reliability of a book, the guidelines tell us to consider three things: the book itself, the publisher, and the author. No library in the world seems to hold a copy of the book. This often means that professional librarians do not regard it as a reputable source. The only listing I see for it is on Amazon, where no publisher or year of publication is identified. It's a print-on-demand book, which often indicates a self-published source. The author, Russell Jesse, is not an acknowledged expert on British Bangladeshi bands, Islamic music, or anything else. If we examine what else he has authored on Amazon, we find Clenbuterol, Samsung SGH-D600, Vaimanika Shastra, and many other diverse titles. These examples are published by Bookvika Publishing, which according to this complaint merely copies and pastes from Knowledge. If the same is true of his Labbayk Nasheeds title, then it's a circular source, and not reliable at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) You mean this book, with the publisher "Book on Demand Pod" (POD = Print on Demand) - a WP:SPS which seems unavailable for sale (at least online)? That would not account for independent reliable coverage (if this book exists at all - it might just be a reserved ISBN). @Leo1pard: - do you have a copy of this book on hand? Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Worldbruce and Icewhiz: I don't have the copy on hand, but I know that this isn't the only link for the book that I've seen. Another one exhibits details like the date being January 2013. Leo1pard (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't have a copy on hand (and haven't verified the contents, reliability, or even existence) - you shouldn't be citing it. Beyond being self published (clear from the named publisher - "Book on Demand Pod") - there's a good chance (since it seems impossible to actually purchase this, isn't on google books, lack of other on-line content around this book) - this is just a reserved ISBN. Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• books that cannot be found, whether self-published, or produced by a group or organization, are not reliable sources or useful to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Citing a source you haven't examined is risky, one might go so far as to say foolhardy. There are strong indications that the "book" is merely a copy of Knowledge (the date of January 2013, which you don't say where you saw, is consistent with this, as the Labbayk deleted in October 2013 was created in June 2012). We can't say for certain because no one has seen the book. It may, as Icewhiz suggests, never have been printed. Or it could be about nasheeds that mention Labbayk or other Hajj-related terms, and nothing at all to do with the British band. I encourage you to reconsider your keep recommendation. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non notable tyre manufacturer, Few sources about it opening a new plant but nothing substantial, Fails GNG –Davey2010 16:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, fails GNG. SpinningSpark 00:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 22:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam Sailor 12:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Fenway Hotel. Ritchie333 16:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Article has no citations, nor could any be found online. Appears to be a real estate description of a property, rather than a significant location. Xevus11 (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Move back to userspace as it was a draft. I'm unsure from my research that it should just redirect to Fenway Hotel. I'm not getting anything solid about the cottage except that Mainsail owns FENWAY COTTAGE LLC. – The Grid (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Added cites regarding guests, reworded a couple of sections to eliminate the real estate flavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewarkShark (talk • contribs) 00:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 22:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• DElete -- What on earth is there notable about this house? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Fenway Hotel as it seems to be a portion of the hotel. NewarkShark has done a great job on fixing up the article but I'm still unsure about WP:GNG as you'll get info about the hotel in the same instance. – The Grid (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is proper to merge with Fenway Hotel entry, as it was a part of the hotel where the rich came for “season”, albeit not a room but a house to lease.

Am I able to take this out of public publication to my personal space where I can engineer integration with Fenway Hotel entry? As a noob I appreciate any and all help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewarkShark (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge to Fenway Hotel. There is enough sourcing to justify the merge. The grand Florida Hotels of the railroad era often had freestanding "cottages" for wealthy guests. Some notable industrialists stayed in this one. Thanks to User:NewarkShark who has offered to carry out the merge.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Scott D. Whiting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited short passing mentions and name checks. This source provides some information, but reads like it's taken right from a press release. Other than this article, not finding much else in independent sources. Furthermore, the article is mostly reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America 10:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America 10:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, google not showing anything that would indicate notability, one ref in the article which is 404. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Claudio D. Zivic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to passing mentions, name checks and quotations. The primary sources in the article and found in searches do not serve to establish notability. The one independent source in the article only provides a name check. North America 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete A significant portion of this article is not actually about the subject or his work at all. That said, the sources listed in the article are either not independent (Church News, Ensign, lds.org, Liahona), trivial mentions (Deseret News), not reliable ("Grampa Bill"), or primary (quotes from a speech in the blog Meridian Magazine), so they don't establish notability under WP:GNG. Search finds passing mentions of ceremonial duties like opening a temple or short quotes from speeches, some apparently in Deseret News but actually produced by the official Church News staff. Having a name or a quote in an article is not WP:SIGCOV. It's trivial. So subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Open to alternatives if significant coverage emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge:General notability guideline and the more detailed Knowledge:Notability (software) requirement. I tried looking for sources, but even with the two alt names I am not seeing anything but a few passing mentions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I think this really fails WP:ORGCRIT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Article improvement since nomination has demonstrated satisfaction of all required criteria.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I appreciate you adding the reception section. It certainly helps, but there's still no in-depth coverage. The two English sources I reviewed (PC World, Linux Journal) are not dedicated to Altacast, but to internet radios, and mention Altacast briefly as one of the examples. I am afraid that this is not enough, to be notable, we need multiple (2+) in-depth treatments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Both edcast and oddcast are both relevant to article. The use of these in the internet radio setups,while not the main focus, are essential components and are described in rather more than a passing mention. On top of the Kosser(1) Kosola and Franz et al(2) Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert alone satisfy multiple requirement of Knowledge:General notability guideline without reliance on Miller which I also contest satisfies the requirement. I have previously identified the Linux Journal as passing mention with regards notability but a relevant cite in the overall context of the article. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert seem to mention Oddcast only in passing (), hardly sufficient for satisfying notability by itself. The master?doctoral? thesis at does go into it in more detail, covering few pages, but it is a thesis, so not a source of highest quality (not saying it is bad, just not great). This AfD will probably be closed as no consensus, and I guess the new sources help a bit, through IMHO still not sufficiently (as there's still not a single in-depth review or article about this topic, just a bunch of mentions in passing). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: While a number of the sources appear questionable for establishing notability, overall it's enough to pass WP:GNG. Modernponderer (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete It appears the Keep !voters above have not looked at the clarifications provided in WP:NCORP on the criteria for establishing notability for products. There references in the article do not meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any references that does. Topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing 16:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed quite often in this type of article the majority of the sources may not be suitable for the purposes of establishing notability. As I indicated before the required sources necessary are present. Article passes WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:SUSTAIN and lines with WP:NSOFT and established practice. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Response First off, in my opinion, the article is more than a little misleading by saying that Altacast was formerly known as Edcast and Oddcast. This is untrue as Altacase is a brand new fork and in fact, Edcast is still a separate fork and still available for download. To me, this is an attempt by Altacast to "inherit" any notability available by Edcast and/or Oddcast. The "required sources" are not available because the correct guideline is WP:GNG/WP:NCORP and not NSOFT which is an essay. If you believe that there exists two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP, kindly post the links below so that other editors can evaluate them. HighKing 20:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah .. I chronic mispells. Please accept apologies. (1) Kosola and (2) Franzke, Nico; Damrau, Robert and I also claim (3) Miller. Only (1) isnt available from the article ... I've wayback'd a copy. Regards. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Exactly my point. Oddcast/Edcast were not "renamed" to Altacast - they're different software. The first reference isn't a reliable source since it is a thesis for a degree, not for a doctorate. Neither of the others mentions Altacast. The second doesn't mention Altacast but is a technical manual for Oddcast (different software). The PCWorld article lisewise doesn't mention Altacast but mentions Edcast. IF Altacast was notable, there should be a reference that actually talks about Altacast. Notability isn't inherited. HighKing 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Oddcast, Edcast, Altacast (orginally known as recast-reborn) are all development forks of the same software and perfect valid for the scope of the article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
            • I understand that is what the article says (unreferenced) and I understand that is the position you have adopted also, but that doesn't make it true, especially with the lack of third party corroboration on that assertion. Forks of software are "forks" for a reason - it means the new software is different and not the same as the old, especially when the old developers are no longer involved. HighKing 11:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
              • A good point, through being the devils advocate, I can see the merit of non-notable merging forks into one article focusing on the most notable, presumably original software. Whether the original software is notable does become an issue here, particularly as sources about forks are not fully relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
                • There are a number of other pertinent points. First off, the original software would need to meet the criteria for notability and then we would need sources connecting the newer software (and the notability of the newer software) with the original. Bear in mind that in this case, there aren't any (third part independent, etc) references connecting the newer forks with the old software, or their relevance to the old software, etc. In this instance, even if the older software was deemed notable (and therefore the title of this article and the subject would need to be changed), we would still need references (independent third party, etc) where the new fork is discussed in light of the older software. HighKing 14:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
                  • The nature of this being treated as one software development is given on the Altacast site and on various other websites, bellonline.co.uk from memory. It is implausible for there these to me distinguished, and if there were separate articles for all three there would likely be a case for merge. I hit the point here where this discussion is disrupting me from doing more productive things .... in real life and better things in wikipedia. I ask myself am I being goaded into a rescue? I am recalling some points by Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) by Joefromrandb and DGG.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:HighKing, bundled notability is not the same thing as inherited notability, but rather a somewhat obscure yet relatively common practice on Knowledge in exactly this type of situation. So while you certainly have a point, you propose no alternative to deletion such as moving the page to a more notable title and refocusing it on that. As such, I must agree with User:Djm-leighpark overall. Modernponderer (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Modernponderer I have to confess I am not aware of "bundled notability" mentioned in any guideline/policy. Can you point me somewhere? I accept it may not be "officially" documented and agree that if it is "common practice" it should be considered. Also, I haven't exhaustively looked to see if "Oddcast" (the logical topic if an alternative suggestion was being sought) is notable but from what I've seen, it might not be. Regardless, given that the content contained within this article has almost nothing to do with that topic (other than perhaps earning a line under a "known forks" section), it seems to me that I cannot recommend any other actions other than "Delete" or "Write an article on a different (but related) topic". The argument put forward by Djm-leighpark (based on my understanding of what he has said) is based on the assumption that *any* fork is notable once the original software is notable. Is this what you are also agreeing to? HighKing 20:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @User:HighKing: Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any actual policy on the issue of bundled notability (which is as I expected though). However, I did look through WP:INHERIT and I still do not see how it applies to this type of case – it talks about notability going "up" and "down", but what about "sideways", when multiple closely-related subjects are discussed in a single article?

Re: your question at the end – obviously a fork is not necessarily notable just because the original software is (that is definitely an "inherited notability"-type argument). But given that we are discussing a single article here, I am not sure that is relevant, and I am pretty sure User:Djm-leighpark was actually making a similar "bundling" argument without referring to it by name.

Again, what I am looking for here is to preserve the main content of the article. Its title and exact focus in terms of forks are both much less important. I am open to supporting basically any proposal from you or other editor(s) concerning this article that does not involve outright deletion of the whole thing. Modernponderer (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment' "Bundled notability "is not the relevant term--rather, it refers to two related practices--

The first guideline is the sub-rule rule in the WP:GNG guideline, that notability does not necessarily lead to a separate article, if the content is such that they can be better covered as sections of a longer article.

Second, partly in consequence of this , in particular we normally cover software products form the same company together in a single article on the company, except for any of them that are clearly of independent notability . As I see it, trying to make multiple articles when they are not clearly justified isa promotional technique, and should be strongly discouraged. Even in practical terms, it is much easier to support one article with substantial content. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you DGG. That is also my understanding in terms of multiple "topics" in the same article. Wrt this topic, the closest analogy I can come up with (by leaning heavily on DGG's description) is Marble (software) (equivalent to Oddcast) and its fork Geothek (equivalent to Altacast). As I've said above, assuming that Oddcast is notable (and likely is), then Altacast can certainly get a mention as a "fork". What options are left for this article? Well, it doesn't make sense to "rename" this to Altacast since there's almost nothing in this article that would carry over - so in my opinion, that means someone needs to write a new article on Oddcast. Until that happens, I can't recomment a "Redirect" since there's nowhere to redirect to. Is there any option other than Delete? HighKing 10:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• probably Keep--repurpose to a combination article for "Oddcast, Edcast, Altacast (orginally known as recast-reborn) which on the evidence above seem to be all versions of the same software. I am not sure what the correct name should be--it would be either the same of the original version, or the best known name. I think this article can be used as a base for rewriting, but I leave that to the people who know the topic better. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am inclined to keep the name as Altacast (if it aint broke leave it alone). For software in general later versions superset earlier versions and on occasions its better to describe the current and put the others in the history. But there are exceptions. On this occasion I'd suggest staying with altacast as it's fairly unique and I have a suspicion (unproved) the newer names were chosen to avoid clashes with another Oddcast's and Edcast's or that may have owned the copyright or to bypass a license distribution scrape. But there is an argument it could suddenly re-incarnate as Trumpcast or something so something like Oddcast (software) might work well.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Rename to Oddcast (software) and Start Over. It is clear that Oddcast is notable and everything else appears to lean on this notability. I've struck my Delete !vote above. HighKing 16:41, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Fulda Cessna crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only two casualties from a minor Cessna crash. Doesn't pass WP:EVENT. Brandmeister 15:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RAPID. Cessna crashes are usually not notable. However, when light aircraft crash into a crowd on the ground - killing 3 people and injuring several more (all fatalities on the ground, the aircraft occupants were lightly injured / shocked) - one possibly has an exception. In this particularly case, this very recent crash (from 14 October) has garnered wide international coverage (in addition to the copious German coverage) - e.g. Reuters, Independent, BBC. At this point evaluating future effects (e.g. on airport procedures) and coverage requires crystall balling on our part, and given the very wide present coverage - per WP:RAPID we should retain the article. Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTNEWS. I'd say if any lasting impact comes out of this, the article could be re-created. In the absence thereof there's no point in keeping. Brandmeister 01:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I created this article due to the unusual nature of the crash and the extensive press coverage. Such crashes are rare and the death toll is comparable to many other articles. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Those other articles about crashes that have a comparable death toll almost always involve larger aircraft. I may also point out there is a precedence for not having an article about a small plane crashing into a crowd with a comparable death toll as this crash. Its the 1985 crash of a Beechcraft Baron doing a go around at Buchanan Field Airport back in 1985. The plane crashed into a shopping mall not far from the end of the runway. The three occupants of the plane died and 84 people on the ground were injured. That crash has no article of its own and is only mentioned on the article for the airport. Based on that precedence, I say this crash should be mentioned only on the article for the airport the plane was trying to land at. - Omega13a (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Unlikely that many people will be interested in this one in a year. —Kusma (t·c) 08:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Tragic but no enduring notability and this is not a memorial site.Charles (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Cessna 172#Accidents and incidents which already describes eight others. Narky Blert (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every C172 accident is notable. A search of the NTSB database for Cessna 172 returns 11718 entries. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The quality of the article alone is simply too bad to keep it.

• "crashed into a crowd of people in Fulda": Fulda is a city of 70 000 inhabitants, situated more than 20 km away.
• Not 2 adults and one child was killed, but v.v.
• Not 8 people were injued, but only the 4 occupants of the Cessna (slightly).
• An aircraft cannot "try to land" - it's usually the pilot.

Once an article about Wasserkuppe Airfield has been created, this accident might be mentioned there, but certainly not as a standalone article. --Uli Elch (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete – although the circumstances of this accident are slightly unusual in that light aircraft rarely cause multiple fatalities on the ground, in the end it's one of hundreds of non-notable accidents occurred to a light single-engine. There was a Cirrus SR22 that killed a man on a beach while landing deadstick, a few years ago, and that didn't get an article either. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable actor. The only source is to the totally unacceptable and BLP violating The Sun and a quick search for other sources doesn't turn up anything outside tabloid journalism. Ritchie333 15:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 17:38, 21 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails to meet WikiProject MMA fighter notability requirement - WP:MMABIO- where by fighter need to have at least 3 fighter with tier one promoter. PRehse (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG bar. Simonm223 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to meet WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA 16:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Coverage is routine sports reporting and notability is not inherited from people he competed against. Papaursa (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Georges Henri Issa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sole source in the article doesn't mention him, and the external links are not WP:RS. A search turned up nothing at all. Fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Well, there are few links that turned up on a search. However, these are mirrors of Knowledge or social media links. Any of them hardly meet WP:RS, and the subject fails GNG. KCVelaga (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I should perhaps have said, a search turned up nothing WP:RS. I too found the social sites and mirrors. Narky Blert (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete: An article originally from a WP:SPA and recently overwritten by horribly promotional text from an IP account. Perhaps this discussion should take as read that this earlier version will be reinstated and use that as the basis for considering notability? That said, the references in that article instance were very poor and, while the subject does appear in a list of names of Lebanese architects , I am not seeing the specific WP:RS coverage needed to establish biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment by nom. I fell across this article because of that recent WP:PEACOCK IP-user expansion, which had bluelinked just about every word of two or more syllables. I don't think we need look at the history of the page. Puffery in any article can be dealt with by third-party editing. That isn't the issue. The Knowledge question is, after you have stripped out the puffery, is there anything left? Narky Blert (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 22:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. I searched, but I can't source him. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Dudley–Winthrop family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing almost no information in independent, reliable sources other than name checks. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG to qualify for an article. North America 10:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 10:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete The only people who would ever care about this article are members of the family itself; It's just a big, pointless list.💵Money💵emoji💵 14:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

*Delete Dudley and Winthrop were notable, important men. Between them they may well have hundreds of thousands of descendants (larger families, early marriages, - do the math). There maybe, in fact, probably are scores, possible hundreds of pages on Knowledge about their more notable descendants - this will be true for most American colonial founders who had children. But it belongs on a genealogy website - not here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• On second thought, the lack of articles on Winthrop family and Dudley family is a genuine gap in our coverage. I really hadn't thought about it, but there are excellent reasons to have the many articles in Category:Political families of the United States. article creator hasn't edited in a couple of years. But I hope someone will undertake to write such articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – Not only does basically no source coverage exist to even verify the article, let alone provide evidence of WP:N being met, see also: WP:NOTGENEALOGY, as yet more rationale for this article to be deleted. North America 16:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of how notable the individuals are, there is no discussion of them as a family in the article and no sources provided showing notability as a family. Much of the material is simply WP:NOTGENEALOGY. SpinningSpark 00:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Not discussed as a set, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete The Dudley and Winthrop families were not one family but two. The family tree at the end of the article focuses on one NN member of the family with notable ancestors and descendants. There is a case for a list article (or rather two), one on each family, Probably called Dudley (surname) and Winthrop (surname), but those already exist. The latter probably covers much the same ground as the article under discussion. The Dudley one might be amended to collect the colonial family into a single section. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was redirect to Cardiomyopathy. Sandstein 11:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Myocardiodystrophy is not an accepted term in medical or scientific literature published in English. The references listed in this article, and almost all mentions of this term when searched in PubMed, are to publications in Russian or Ukrainian. I believe that the closest translation to the term in English is Cardiomyopathy. This page was until recently orphaned and only came to my attention when links to it were posted to a page I watch. An alternative to deletion could be changing it simply to a redirect to the Cardiomyopathy page. PeaBrainC (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• delete yep. or redirect to cardiomyopathy. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• redirect to Cardiomyopathy, refs in the article are 404 or offline, google showing it is a variation of cardiomyopathy. Szzuk (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split between keeping (per GNG because of the news coverage) and delete/redirect (because of the routine nature of election coverage). This reflects a broader disagreemeent among editors about whether articles about major-party candidates for significant offices in two-party systems should be normally kept or not; but we'll not resolve this matter here. Sandstein 11:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Unelected candidate, fails WP:NPOL. Article was created in campaign preceding upcoming election, WP:PROMO applies. Cabayi (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The specific guidelines for politicians are not authoritative or definitive for determining notability, only the basic standard WP:PERSON is to be used to definitely determine notability. WP:N states that "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable". The sub-category suggestions are just rough guides -- the ultimate criterion is the basic WP:N, and each person must meet that criteria in order to get an article irrespective of how they come out on the specific sub-guidelines for politicians notability.

Since this guy has in-depth, substantial coverage from multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources about a major event (and additional coverage about additional independent events), he meets the criteria outlined in WP:PERSON.

I created the article because it seemed unusual that most of the other candidates had articles (even the ones who lost the primary), but this guy, who won the primary, didn't have an article. Upon further research I found that he does indeed have lots of coverage -- more than enough to warrant an article.

Please feel free to contribute to the article and help fill it out. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The losing primary candidates who have articles all, right across the board without exception, have articles because they have held notable NPOL-passing offices already. Not a single one of them has an article because they ran in but lost a gubernatorial primary — they have articles because they've been state legislators or cabinet officials or mayors of the state's largest city, not just because they ran for governor and lost. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Draftify Hence our problem - the article fails WP:NPOL and is needlessly promotional per WP:PROMO, but the election's in what, a month or two? And he seems to be likely to be notable in the short term. SportingFlyer talk 10:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

There are already eleven cites on this stub article, and that's a fraction of what's out there in google searches. He easily meets the WP:N guidelines. That's it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Could you explain, in detail, how this article falls under WP:PROMO? I don't see it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

An article created about a candidate a couple months out from the election, but it contains endorsements and a partially uncited link to a scandal at his company. I will admit it's not the worst I've ever seen, but keep in mind WP:N is subject to WP:NOT. We could also move most of this information to the election page and put up a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 11:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't the way it's written, please feel free to change it. How it's written doesn't effect the fact that it's notable. Besides, it's all of about 7 hours old at this point. Help fill it out. Find some more details and put them in there. I don't want to have to do all the work. Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - this one covers WP:GNG. And Wp:N. Notable politician already.BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Mainly a promotional bio of an individual who currently, as an unelected candidate for office, fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please be specific. Please cite what in the article is "promotional". Better yet, just go ahead and change what you think needs changing. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to have been written by somebody either affiliated with his campaign or at least strongly supportive of it. It also fails WP:NPOL. Candidates with stronger cases are routinely deleted. Avidohioan (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I wrote (most of) this article and I have stated above that I never heard of this guy until right before I created the article, nor do I have any interest in the outcome of the election. I do feel strongly about keeping the article, though, and improving it. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. As always, the bar that a candidate has to clear to get a Knowledge article just for being a candidate is not just "campaign coverage exists" — campaign coverage always exists for every candidate in every election, so if the existence of campaign coverage were enough in and of itself to exempt a candidate from having to pass NPOL by winning the election first, then every candidate would always get that exemption and there would be no standard left to distinguish notable from non-notable politicians at all anymore. Rather, to earn an article without having to win the election first, what a candidate has to show is a reason why their candidacy is a special case, because they're receiving exponentially more coverage than most other candidates are also getting. What needs to be shown is credible evidence why even if he loses the election he'll still pass the ten-year test for enduring significance anyway — absent credible evidence of specialness, however, the simply normal and expected volume and range of campaign coverage does not reify into a GNG pass until after he's been declared the winner. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018 then undo the redirect after his likely win in November because he's not a young Latina Democrat. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This guy meets the WP:NPOL criteria. The WP:NOL guideline states, "people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Also, WP:BASIC states, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below ." This guy easily meets the basic criterion because he has "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." And as a bonus he also has independent coverage from his role as the CEO of Gateway. Many of the other comments in this thread are citing reasons that do not have consensus and are not part of the WP:N guideline. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

He does NOT meet WP:NPOL. Of the sources you cite only 2 are unrelated to his candidacy. One is a trade listing in bloomberg.com which is way short of the "significant coverage" required. The other, in news9.com I'm unable to see (they've got a GDPR block in place), which, if significant, would be a grand total of ONE source.

You contend that he's notable outside the context of his candidacy.

He founded his company in 2000. Did anybody create an article then? No.

The company got some coverage of a controversy in 2009. Did anybody create an article then? No.

Has anybody thought his company passed WP:NCORP and created or tried to create an article for Gateway Mortage or Gateway Mortage Group? No.

He stands for election in 2018 and in the run up to the election an article appears. And we're invited to believe that it's because of previously existing notability - even though, in your own words, you'd "never heard of this guy until right before".

If he's elected, you deserve credit for the article and it should be restored. Until then, give us credit for looking at the evidence and calling it for what it is - a biography of an unelected candidate created in the election period. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As I already pointed out above, every candidate in every election always has campaign coverage — so if the existence of campaign coverage were in and of itself enough to exempt a candidate who wasn't already notable for other reasons besides the candidacy from having to win the election to pass NPOL, then NPOL would never apply to anybody at all anymore and we would always have to keep an article about every candidate. So no, there is only one way that a candidate's campaign coverage gets them over GNG all by itself as an exemption from having to pass NPOL first — it happens only when the campaign coverage has exploded so far out of proportion to what every other candidate everywhere else is also getting that he has a credible claim to being a special case over and above most other candidates. And no, you haven't shown that to be true here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• Bearcat, don't you also live in Toronto? I thought you did, so you must have noticed that, in yesterday's election for Mayor there were a whole bunch of nobodies on the ballot, who did not receive meaningful coverage. So, no, not every candidate always gets press coverage.

  With regard to the kind of coverage most candidates get, during their campaign... We don't cover the press coverage of 99 percent of candidates for the same reason we don't cover 99 percent of murderers. Sadly, from a statistical point of view, most murderers are predictably very similar. Most murderers were drunk, or on drugs, or were involved with petty crime, like robbery or drug dealing, or were brutal domestic abusers, or some combination there-of. This means most murders are already covered in the general articles we have on drug abuse, robbery, domestic abuse, etc. However, there are murders with exceptional circumstances, that trigger coverage of the exceptional circumstances. Cops shooting individuals who turn out to be unarmed, or innocent bystanders? Those are exceptional circumstances, and we cover them. Similarly, most candidates platforms, are some variation of memes floating around, all over. But when there is press coverage saying a candidate has an exceptional plank in their platform, something new and unique, that adds considerable notability. Saron Gebressellasi, for instance, called for public transit to be free, for everyone, IMO a platform plank so unique, and widely commented upon, that it alone lifted her close to our threshhold for notabilty.

  Since you also live in Toronto you know about failed candidates, like Sarah Thompson, who would have been one of those non-notable also-rans, if she hadn't leveled reasonable credible accusations that the incumbent used a photo-op to fondle her, and make sexual overtures to her.

  When press coverage of a candidate is exceptional, it may make them pass our inclusion criteria, even though they are likely to be an also-ran. Geo Swan (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly, I was referring to federal or state elections, not municipal ones — there is not a single gubernatorial or congressional candidate anywhere in the United States, for example, who could not show every bit as much coverage as this shows. But no, it's not actually true that any mayoral candidates in Toronto received no coverage at all — certainly most didn't get as much coverage as Tory and Keesmaat, but there was no candidate who really, truly received none. Even the candidate who had the media actively draw a full-blown cordon sanitaire around her still got some media coverage. (And as for Saron Gebressellasi, "offers a unique campaign plank" is not a notability criterion that lifts a non-winning minor mayoral candidate close to or over the notability line either — her sole basis for getting over the bar, as of today, would be if she could already have claimed preexisting notability for other reasons completely divorced from her status as a candidate. And no, Sarah Thomson didn't get over the line on the Gropegate allegations either: when she got tested at AFD, Knowledge consensus put her over the line on her preexisting work as publisher of a newspaper, not as a person who might or might not have gotten groped by the mayor — the latter would just make her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who had earned permanent coverage in a worldwide encyclopedia.) Bottom line is that the volume of press coverage shown in this article is not "exceptional" for the purposes of getting him past our inclusion criteria — it's simply the normal and expected volume, not anything out of the ordinary. Passing GNG is not just a loose giveaway that we hand to every person who can simply show that some media coverage of them exists — it's a question of evaluating the depth and range of coverage and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, not just of counting up the footnotes and keeping everybody who happens to surpass two (a low bar which, as I've pointed out many times before, would mean we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got media coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her yard.) GNG is not just an arbitrary number of footnotes: it tests for depth and range and context. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep, he is the nominee of a major party ticket for the highest office in a state. He meets the standard. He is also leading in the polls right now. -capriaf

Leading in the polls at any given time during the campaign is not a notability freebie for a candidate. People can lead in the polls during the campaign and still lose (see: Hillary Clinton, who no reliable poll at any point in the entire campaign ever showed losing) and candidates can trade the lead over the course of the campaign (see: Tom Mulcair, who would be Prime Minister of Canada right now if leading the polls at the start of the campaign were more determinative than leading the polls at the end of the campaign were) — so NPOL gets passed by winning the election, not by leading in polls during the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Seems to meet GNG is not NPOL perhaps. He should be considered notable for his business career at least. ~EDDY ~ 01:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Where in this article is there any notability-supporting coverage of his business career as its own thing? People do not get over our notability standards for businesspeople just because their background as businesspeople gets mentioned in the campaign coverage — they get over our notability standards for businesspeople only if and when enough coverage of their career in business itself can be shown, but there's no evidence of it present here. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per WP:GNG, there is plenty of coverage of Stitt in reliable sources. He will likely (to use the language of pollsters) be the next governor of Oklahoma anyway, so this exercise seems pointless from a statistical standpoint. -- Tavix 20:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Updating to "Strong Keep" after even more sources has been added to his article. I have no doubts that he meets the standards for inclusion required by WP:GNG. -- Tavix 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Strong REDIRECT to Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018

Per WP:PROMO, per nom.

Per WP:NPOL, a candidate must exceed coverage than expected for a campaign.

Per WP:GNG, a subject must be covered extensively by the media (though NPOL overrides this, as the coverage can't be solely WP:MILL campaign coverage.

I avoided creating this page myself per WP:POLOUTCOMES, which would typically argue that a REDIRECT to the election he or she is notable for is sufficient, until they win the election.

See the following AFDs for similar results to this:

Bill Lee – Tennessee businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

Shawn Moody – Maine businessman and Gubernatorial candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

Tony Campbell – Maryland businessman and Senate candidate, redirected to the 2018 election

This article was previously deleted for not being notable (see this AfD discussion).

So please, do not let this article stay as is. The revision history will be maintained with a redirect, so in the likely scenario that he wins (though not guaranteed - see WP:CRYSTAL), the article can be restored to its current state.

Redditaddict69 04:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Redditaddict69, just about everything you said is incorrect. No evidence of wp:promo; wp:npol doesn't say that and it doesn't "override" wp:n; the previous ADF you mention was for a different Kevin Stitt not related to this guy; and the three other ADF examples you gave are not even close to the press this guy has gotten. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - nominator implies Stitt has only been covered with regard to his recent run for political office. Bzzzt.

1. There is press coverage of a 2009 incident that got him banned from doing business in Georgia, for five years.
2. 2015 coverage of a ground breaking.
3. 2011 coverage of Stitt's role in a SEC inquiry.

• Keep, as above. Geo Swan (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• None of those sources would be enough for an article. SportingFlyer talk 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree, there is plenty of enough sources for an article. ~EDDY ~ 02:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• One of those only came up because he was a gubernatorial candidate. The other two aren't enough to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• They are not sufficient for GNG, though they count towards it. If another 1-3 good and reliable sources can be found, this may be able to be kept. Otherwise I still stand by my vote to redirect (though I wouldn't be against merging some of the content that passes WP:V and relates to the candidacy to the election article). Redditaddict69 03:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Redditaddict69 you used the passive voice. Did you spend a minute to perform your own web search, for coverage of Stitt at non-campaign events? I never intended the four references I offered above to be comprehensive.

    Policy calls upon nominators to comply with WP:BEFORE, and take a good look for references not yet included in the article they are considering looking to delete. If their search shows the underlying topic measures up to our inclusion criteria, they are supposed to reconsider calling for deletion.

    Sadly, anyone with experience at AFD knows lots of nominators either never do a web search to determine the underlying notability of the topic, because they object to BEFORE, or made an attempt to do a web search, but were too inexperienced, or too poorly motivated to have done an effective search. Wikidocument don't require it, but I wish they did -- I encourage you, and everyone else here, to take a minute to do your own web search on Stitt. Geo Swan (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Geo Swan: I did, in fact, do a WP:BEFORE. On Google, I searched Kevin Stitt minus three words (gubernatorial, governor, and vote, to narrow down any results related to the election). These are my results, and clearly, I cannot find anything about him that has not already been mentioned here. I spent about 15-20 minutes looking for articles with different keywords, searches, phrases, and search engines and I stand by my previous vote, which is to redirect to the election. I know many nominators do not do a BEFORE search but even after I did, I found nothing. Redditaddict69 20:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer, we have the General Notability Guideline, and we have a bunch of exceptional special purpose notability guidelines, like POLITICIAN. Special purpose notability guidelines, like POLITICIAN are exceptional because an individual can have their notability established through them for just a single exceptional notability factor.

  When the community has concluded an individual's notability is established through GNG it means contributors added up the notability conferred by notability factors. No offense but you seem to be making a common but incorrect argument. Winning a Medal of Honor, or a Victoria Cross, is one of those special purpose notability criteria. Traditionally we always consider such individuals worthy of a standalone article, even if they don't measure up to GNG. The common mistake is to argue that lesser medals, like the Silver Star, Bronze Star, are irrelevant. Like the notability factors I mentioned above, while a lesser medal doesn't establish an individual as notable, all by itself, it is a notability factor that adds to the individual's cumulative notability.

  Please understand that multiple contributors here claimed BLP1E applies. But BLP1E only applies to previously unknown individuals. When an individual has received earlier coverage, they can't, by definition, be a BLP1E. No, none of the prior coverage would establish Stitt's notability, all by itself. But, first, they establish he is not a BLP1E, so the closing admin should ignore all comments here that merely say he should be deleted because he was a BLP1E; second, we add notability factors together. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Geo Swan I really do not understand what you're talking about with your medal analogies - Stitt did not win any medals and has not become a notable candidate because he was mentioned in two articles years before his election. Merely being mentioned in an article before one becomes a WP:BLP1E doesn't disqualify WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer talk 23:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018. He doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as of yet. Most of the coverage is about the campaign, not the candidate. This should not have been made an article until he does, and that won't be until he wins, unless he loses. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I just added another dozen or so sources to the article including, AP NEWS, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, etc. This race and Stitt has captured attention from national media and prominent national politicians because it's a tight race and the governorship may flip parties. Also, there was much more coverage of his exploits prior to the campaign, which I added sources for. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, sources about the campaign, not about the candidate. The relevant article this belongs in is Oklahoma gubernatorial election, 2018. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources about the candidate's role in the campaign, which should be mentioned in his article similar to Drew Edmondson#2018 gubernatorial election. There are several other sources in Stitt's article that have nothing to do with his campaign. -- Tavix 15:45, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page has three incoming links from articles, all of which are fairly inconsequential. Character appears ten times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: I or Rictor. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - The CBR source in the article is a Q&A from fans, which I don't think passes WP:RS. No other reliable secondary sources found. --Killer Moff (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Not significant within the fiction. Rictor does not provide sufficient context for a redirect to be worthwhile. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 22:47, 19 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Richards–Young family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing almost no information in independent, reliable sources other than a name check or two. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG to qualify for an article. North America 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions (by another user). North America 17:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Families don't get much more notable than this. Anyone willing to turn this into an article - or split it into multiple articles - more in keeping with other pages in Category:Families from Utah; Category:Political families of the United States?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – @E.M.Gregory: If the topic is so notable (per Knowledge's standards), then why is there almost no source coverage of the topic to be found anywhere? Try out the Find sources links atop this nomination. Please provide sources, if you're able to find any, but they need to be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage to even begin qualifying an article. None appear to exist. Regarding your statement, "Anyone willing to turn this into an article"; it already is an article, but from my source searches, it cannot even be verified. Deletion seems obvious in this case; no sources cover the topic from the start; it fails WP:N. See also: WP:NOTGENEALOGY. North America 16:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think the hyphen is the problem. Brigham Young and his descendants can certainly support a "notable family" article. And it looks as though the Richards family can also support one. As I said, someone would have to create these articles. Perhaps an editor who visits this AfD will take inspiration form the page and write a proper article on either or both families. If not, it can be deleted. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Asserting that there are sources is not the same as pointing to some actual sources we can look at. Of course some of these people are notable, but that is not enough. What is needed for this page is sources discussing them as a family, not a bunch of disparate sources discussing them individually. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The page is mostly WP:NOTGENEALOGY and there is no real discussion of the group as a family. Certainly no sourced discussion. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTGENEALOGY with a side of WP:OR. Brigham Young is obviously notable. So is Willard Richards. However, the progeny of Richard Whitehead Young (the grandson of Young) who married Minerva Richards (the neice of Richards) are not particularly notable nor discussed as a set. The page basically consists of very notable 19th century Youngs and Richards, sprinkled with much less notable people who could be described as Richards-Young (though it seems that they did not self-describe as such). Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given by others. I am not convinced this is a single family. If we go back far enough we are all related. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The page is linked by one non-list non-disambiguation article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: I or Excalibur (comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - No evidence of any independent notability. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Insignificant within the fiction. The only in-line mention is a namedrop at Excalibur (comics). Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was redirect to Legacy Virus. Content remains in history if anyone wants to merge anything. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG. Appears 12 times according to Marvel Wikia. Page is linked in the bodies of four articles, which either provide sufficient context or or trivial mentions that could be deleted without affecting the article. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: I or Legacy Virus. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Legacy Virus, which provides sufficient info on character. --Killer Moff (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect to Legacy Virus per Killer Moff. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 22:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: I – Character appears to be reasonably notable, as it appears that Infectia has affected the storyline of Beast, who is a notable character in the Marvel Comics universe. Merging into Legacy Virus would not be appropriate given the length of the Infectia article, so I suggest either preservation of the article as is, or merging it into the list of Marvel Comics characters. 114.75.67.23 (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Ant Media Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable media server project. Only hit from GNews is to a Turkish blog, and the article's entirely sourced to GitHub (which, as the hosting site, isn't an acceptable source). —Jeremy v^_^v 09:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable subject entirely sourced to Github. Unable to find any references to it from reliable sources. {{u|zchrykng}}  17:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Fails the requirement of having coverage in multiple reliable sources. Rzvas (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Subject is a MMA fighter. Fails to meet WikiProject MMA fighter notability requirement - WP:MMABIO- where by fighter need to have at least 3 fighter with tier one promoter. CASSIOPEIA 09:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 11:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Weak Keep An in-depth article picked up in various Australian local press and several articles on Fight News Australia speaks toward WP:GNG - and WP:MMABIO does not supersede GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep I added features or news articles about Nguyen from multiple newspapers or major news websites like the South China Morning Post, Fox Sports Asia and ABS-CBN and believe this now meets WP:GNG Sadoka74 (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and most of the coverage is either results or pre-fight promotion. Winning an Asian MMA award provides no more notability than being selected to a martial arts hall of fame--and those are always ignored. Papaursa (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet notability reqs. ShadessKB (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment WP:MMANOT doesn't supersede WP:GNG; it doesn't matter how low an opinion Knowledge has of anything without Sherdog's official of approval if they meet general notability guidelines. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• delete I don't think the GNG is met by event promotions and results reporting. WP:NMMA, not WP:MMANOT, is the notability standard for MMA fighters and he doesn't meet that either. Simonm223, you've made your dislike of the MMA criteria very clear and repeatedly mentioning that it "doesn't supercede WP:GNG" is already understood--no one ever claimed that it did.Sandals1 (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Afrikaanse Idols voting results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Idols South Africa Season 3 voting results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Idols South Africa Season 4 voting results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article is solely based on self-published sources; WP:INDISCRIMINATE 99.203.30.242 (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• AFD request completed by me on behalf of the IP Iffy★Chat -- 08:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; unsourced trivia. Not opposed to redirects to the main articles on these shows. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 19 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Qur al Rikibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These articles are part of a series of tens of geographical stubs (settlements as well as mountains) created some ten years ago, presumably as part of a WP page creation drive. They all fail WP:V, GNG and WP:GEOLAND. I've done BEFORE on them as well as following the markers (which all lead to random terrain, scrubland, wadi beds and, in one case, an oil terminal) and they are all simply misleading cruft that has led to thousands of pages of rubbish spawning all over the Internet and obscuring the actual, verifiable geography of the UAE. I'm completing this nomination on behalf of Alexandermcnabb who wrote the nomination and did Before. Szzuk (talk) 08:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Jabal Ruham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jabal Safad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jabal Sha'ra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jabal Shariyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jabal Satif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jabal Rumh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comment. As noted I completed this nomination for another user. I think we should delete all of these articles per the nom's argument. I believe these were created in error, they basically pinpoint to somewhere else, in some cases a different country, and google searches don't return anything that could be used for WP:V. Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all of them. this reminds me of the fake somali towns, which were deleted for similar reasons.💵Money💵emoji💵 14:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete sourcing shows that this fails WP:GEOLAND so delete. JC7V-constructive zone 23:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment, there is a related discussion here; Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hundreds_of_garbage_articles_created_by_blocked_user Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Has only tiny voice and live-action roles. wumbolo ^^^ 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Only passing mentions from the searches I did and the sources presently in the article are similarly indicative of a subject who fails WP:Nactor and WP:GNG. JC7V-constructive zone 21:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep - Let this page stay. Not all of Joe Ochman's roles are minor. He did portray the major villain Prince Eccentro from Mon Colle Knights and had supporting roles in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo and Bleach as well as the Godzilla anime movies. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Per rtkat. Not all his roles are minor. ~EDDY ~ 02:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete lacks indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

*Keep per rtkat and Editorofthewiki. Sakaimover (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - He's clearly notable, if only for "Skin in the Game" & video game work. Markvs88 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was merge to Hyaluronic acid. Sandstein 08:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Bit of a corner case, but it appears that this term was coined and then referenced exactly 3 times in 7 years (along the lines of "there's also this hypothetical thing called a fasciacyte"). I suggest this does not constitute sufficient uptake and/or verification for an article, which would be based on the original publication alone. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• This could possibly be merged to Hyaluronic acid but I am concerned that the status of this research has not been established. Knowledge should not be stating that these cells definitely exist when there is no evidence that other scholars have confirmed this, or even taken an interest in the work. It may be TOOSOON to be covering this on the basis of just the one original paper. I wouldn't be too concerned about the neoligism as such – if a human cell type exists then it is going to get notable enough to have an article. If it ends up with a different name, we would just have to move the page to the new title. SpinningSpark 23:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Redirect / merge to Fascia. This article is a needless fork and can be better displayed in the context of the main article, fascia. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I support the suggestion made by Athikhun.suw. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, my !vote is don't keep a standalone page. I'm undecided whether it should be kept as a redirect. If it is redirected, the target article should state that this is based on one research paper, and not that the existence of this cell is an established fact. SpinningSpark 17:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• I agree that the presence of such cells may be hypothetical, albeit I was the one who wrote the Faciacyte article. The recent publication (in 2018) revealed that proposed hyaluron producing cells have round shape while other two studies from the same researchers in 2011 (published in Surg Radiol Anat) and 2013 (published in J Anat) reported that those cells rather had elongated shape. The results are contradictory here. In the mean time, I believe the article could be merged to Hyaluronic acid saying something like "The term fasciacyte was coined to describe fibroblast-like cells that synthesise hyaluronan.", citing all three previous papers. What do you think? And of course when there is enough evidence there can be a standalone page. --Athikhun.suw (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hyaluronic acid: I am a (very!) non-expert, probably like most of our readers, but as the resident layman, I find Athikhun.suw reasoning wholly convincing. I also echo the suggestion that it is merely TOOSOON rather than never; it's clearly a field where "new" discoveries are relatively common. ——SerialNumber54129 08:03, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui _水 08:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable actress. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delte a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, her imdb profile is as full as this article. Szzuk (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable software. No sources independent of blogs, download pages and forum postings. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep isbn 8778438195 - at the top of of the my results from my clicking Google Books link above seems immediately to discredit the nom's statement No sources independent of blogs, download pages and forum postings. This should have been picked up on WP:BEFORE. Merge to Nvu not considered and anyone without a content deletionist persuasion and time is welcome to propose a merge to Nvu following keep. Again this is something that should have been considered before disruptively coming to AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable software. No sources independent of blogs, download pages and forum postings. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - isbn 1118051394 Internet for Dummies at the top of of the my results from my clicking Google Books link above seems immediately to discredit the nom's statement No sources independent of blogs, download pages and forum postings. This should have been picked up on WP:BEFORE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (mass flow rate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An un-reliably-sourced article that fails WP:LISTN and is comprised of noble-synthesis of data. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBG 06:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Cannot understand what the title of article is signalling, article is just a complied list of various facts, not encyclopedic, feels like something out of buzzfeed. Fails WP:LISTN. ~ Araratic | talk 08:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, and Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the list entries are described in the references with regard to the term "mass flow rate". — Newslinger talk 09:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for the creator's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally concurring with Winged Blades of Godric,I fail to see what use at all this 'article' can have on Knowledge. If it is supposed to be humorous like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably - Knowledge is not a joke site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to Mass flow rate under an examples section. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as trivia. I don't see the point of merging; this information wouldn't add anything useful to Mass flow rate. 00:41, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. czar 03:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No WP:SIGCOV, this is a WP:MILL company without significant enough secondary coverage for us to bother covering here. Marquardtika (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:CORP, particularly WP:CORPDEPTH. Lots of passing mentions for LoanMart Field, but I don't think a redirect would be appropriate since stadium's article doesn't provide much information on the company. — Newslinger talk 04:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Added additional sources from Wall Street Journal, California Department of Business Oversight and HighReview. Cofeebk23 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Analysis of sources cited in article:
  1. Bloomberg: Doesn't provide significant coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH). Directory listing.
  2. Tireball: Not significant.
  3. ABL Advisor: Not significant. Capital transaction announcement.
  4. HighBeam (open access link): Undetermined. I don't have access to the paywalled article. Not significant. Passing mention.
  5. Wall Street Journal: Not significant. Capital transaction announcement.
  6. PRWeek: Borderline. Doesn't give any information about LoanMart's core business, other than that the company "defines itself as a non-traditional lending company" who paid Hulk Hogan to sponsor an ad about "giving people a second chance with their finances".
  7. Forbes.com: Not reliable or significant. Passing mention in contributor article.
  8. CNNMoney: Not significant. Passing mention.
  9. Forbes.com Not reliable or significant. Passing mention in contributor article.
  10. Minor League Baseball: Not independent or significant. Partnership announcement.
  11. SportsPro: Not significant. Partnership announcement.
  12. SportsPro: Not significant. Partnership announcement.
  13. Minor League Baseball: Not independent or significant. Partnership announcement.
  14. Los Angeles Times: Not significant. Passing mention.
  15. California Department of Business Oversight: Not independent. Primary sources can't be used to establish notability. Legal document.
  16. California Department of Business Oversight: Not independent. Primary source. Legal document.
  17. SFGate: Not significant. HARO-style passing mention.

Sources outside of the article are no better. — Newslinger talk 15:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree some of these sources should be removed/cleaned up; however, The California Department of Business Oversight is a Government Organization that monitors financial institutions in California. It is 100% independent. - The WSJ article on the $100M credit facility from Victory Park Capital and piece on naming rights for LoanMart Field show this company as notable.

There are valid independent sources and the article should be improved upon, not deleted. Cofeebk23 (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal documents (including the 2 PDFs from the California Department of Business Oversight) are primary sources and are not considered independent, especially for the purpose of evaluating notability. The Wall Street Journal writeup is specifically excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH as an example of "trivial coverage", since it is a brief announcement of a capital transaction. — Newslinger talk 23:14, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

On another note, these sources don't have to be removed from the article. They just don't count toward the 2 sources required for the company to satisfy the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for corporations. — Newslinger talk 04:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete Good analysis by Newslinger above, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 17:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Per above, with thanks to Newslinger for organizing the refs. WP:REFSPAM is the issue here; unless an independent, in-depth source provides a information about LoanMart that can be construed as passing NCORP, then the article has not reason for inclusion on Knowledge.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (volumetric flow rate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally researched stuff that is non-reliably sourced and fails WP:LISTN. And, if someone do manage to find such trivial list(s) in high-school/undergrad science text-book (which often have them to provide an indicative idea of the vastness of the real range of a physical quantity), we are not one.We are an encyclopedia. ∯WBG 05:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN, and Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the list entries (except for Planck volumetric flow rate) are described in the references with regard to the term "volumetric flow rate". — Newslinger talk 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment This article is part of a set – see the following navigational template. It doesn't make sense to consider this in isolation when other members of the set have been extensively discussed and kept previously. For example, see RfC, AfD. Also, it doesn't seem fair to be nominating this article for deletion as a reprisal for the creator's !vote at RfA – see WP:HOUND. Andrew D. (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Totally concurring with Winged Blades of Godric,I fail to see what use at all this 'article' can have on Knowledge. If it is supposed to be humorous like his 'science' antics at RfA, then it has failed miserably - Knowledge is not a joke site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Merge to volumetric flow rate under an examples section. —Eli355 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, do not merge. Total trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui _水 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Character does not meet WP:GNG, page is not linked to by any articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 06:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: C. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. No need to keep or merge everything, especially when it's fails GNG and NCOMICS. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable within the fiction, and certainly not notable outside of it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 22:51, 19 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. Yunshui _水 08:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Non-notable Russian actor. --RTY9099 (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 3. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:GNG. Notable actor. Notable roles. Article needs more sourcing though.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:BASIC completely, and WP:NACTOR is not really satisfied. His roles aren't significant, except perhaps in one film, which is not enough. wumbolo ^^^ 07:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Wumbolo: And you speak how much Russian? Sam Sailor 07:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Enough to discern between passing mentions and significant coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 08:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Note to closer: The above delete opinion was typed in and saved only 3 minutes and 15 seconds after the user's previous edit. ––Sam Sailor 08:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. The article does not reflect well the fact that he had a long career on stage and in films, but I agree with BabbaQ, subject meets NACTOR and, judging from the sources, also GNG/BASIC. And he was People's Artist of Russia, the highest national award in his field and a clear WP:ANYBIO pass, so this is not exactly AFD material. Not a good nomination. Sam Sailor 07:50, 23 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The NPOV and encyclopedic version of this article is located at Demonym#Suffixation. The adjectives fail WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDICT. The sub-articles should probably be deleted if this one is deleted. wumbolo ^^^ 21:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 22:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Needs work per WP:IMPERFECT but clearly passes WP:LISTN, e.g. Labels for Locals: What to Call People from Abilene to Zimbabwe. Andrew D. (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 05:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep all per above. As mentioned by Andrew D, it "needs work per WP:IMPERFECT but clearly passes WP:LISTN". Paintspot Infez (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2018 (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.

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 deleted by User:Cullen328. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The University of Georgia at Fairburn is home to the Pandas. The Pandas are the greatest team in college football history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be non-notable fiction that falls into the class of original research, as well as being sourced only to YouTube, which is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui _水 08:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Has composed music for some notable games but does not seem to satisfy GNG or any particular SNG. Could not locate any significant coverage in either Japanese or English merely credit for songs composed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As a point of procedure, could you please avoid referring to Knowledge policies with short acronyms and link to the text of the policy? I think that would make the discussion easier to follow for people that aren't experts in deleting Knowledge articles. Drj11 (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• weak keep Since she appears on the fr and ja wikipedias, although those are stub articles too. I'm surprised there isn't acknowledgement of the composer she works with Kenji Yamamoto. I feel like people who work together should probably have separate articles on wikipedia. We don't want the Donna Strickland fiasco again. Sorry, i don't know the wikipedia policies that are relevant here. Fred (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

As an aside to the point of her working with Kenji Tamamoto, notability isn't inherited.JC7V-constructive zone 22:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

She has an article on Catalan Knowledge as well. (And if someone could add those cross-wiki links under the current process, I'd appreciate it. I can't figure out the new interface on that stuff, so I just stuck them in the body of the article.) -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

That another Knowledge has an article doesn't mean notability is met on this one. soetermans. 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Minako Hamano composed music for Link's Awakening which received a Nintendo Power award for its sound and music. usgamer.net ran an article dedicated to the soundtrack for Link's Awakening describing it as "a powerful soundtrack that's unrivalled on the Game Boy". Minako Hamano composed music for Super Metroid which factmag.com lists in the top 5 best SNES soundtracks. That makes them notable compositions. Her work has been remixed and rearranged by other composers in the video game industry. Her work (in Super Metroid) has been arranged for and by at least two world class orchestras: The London Philharmonic Orchestra and WDR Funkhausorchester Köln. Her work (again in Super Metroid) has been sampled by others several times, and in particular by Vast Aire https://www.whosampled.com/sample/235824/Vast-Aire-Kenyattah-Black-The-Cannon-of-Samus-Minako-Hamano-Opening-(Destroyed-Science-Academy-Research-Station)/. These meet the standard for WP:COMPOSER. Drj11 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, award-winning composer, seems sufficiently notable to deserve an article. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete unfortunately I don't think she passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. While Link's Awakening did win a Nintendo Power Award for sound, that award isn't on the notability criteria list (it's just a video game award given Nintendo Power magazine; the most relevant SNG criteron in this case would be WP:NVIDEOGAMES, which points out that awards and nominations do not by themselves demonstrate a game's notability, so I would assume the same for the video game soundtrack). Nor can we use the fact that she has article in other wikiprojects, as they may have simply created articles there because we had one here (WP:CIRCULAR). I think we have to rely on GNG here, and unfortunately I have to agree with the nominator: I'm just not seeing anything that resembles sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. If the music were that notable, I would have expected more coverage of it in the Link's Awakening article; unfortunately there is only passing mention (a little more than one small paragraph) of it there as well. I would support someone expanding the music coverage in Link's Awakening, perhaps even creating its own subsection. CThomas (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete don't think she passes GNG or WP:MUSIC. There are few indepedent and reliable sources that would allow expansion for her article beyond what she has composed etc. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 08:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. On the custom WP:VG/RS search engine, Hamano is mentioned frequently, but just in passing, in relation to her work. There's no in-depth coverage on the person. The award for Link's Awakening was for its "graphics and sound", not for the music and it wasn't awarded to Hamano. soetermans. 09:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete She doesn't pass WP:Nmusic, not much has changed since the last AFD (which was a delete) and only passing mentions.Notabilityy isn't inherited and her working with other notable people or working on popular video games doesn't give her an automatic pass. JC7V-constructive zone 16:27, 16 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was delete. Yunshui _水 08:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Political candidate that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Of the current references, the first one is purely about his campaign, the second and third are pieces by him, and the fourth is about his company power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:PROMO, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete as not being notable in so many ways. Cabayi (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• delete lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. "Aspiring Representative " is not in sufficient depth- it is an interview with subject. ""This Thing Called Corruption" was written by the subject. "The psychology of financial inclusion" is not about the subject; it is by the subject. "Learning Impact unveils local electronic newspaper" is routine coverage of the launch of his e-paper and lacks coverage in depth of him or the e-paper. Redirect to an article about the race he is running in would be an acceptable alternative if there were independent coverage, but there is not. This article serves as little more than a soapbox for his campaign.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Article is still under construction. I have seen your arguments and will find more appropriate references. Feel free to contribute to making this article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perehrat (talk • contribs) 22:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. People do not get Knowledge articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won yet — but this makes no strong claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy, and it doesn't show credible evidence of why his candidacy itself would be a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2018 (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.

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

The result was Withdrawn. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

C.C.P Contact Probes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivial promotional article for a minor company. Revenue $60 million a year--it is listed on the Taiwanese stock exchange, and the fact that they list it makes it clear that such listing should not be taken to imply notability . (And even if one thought it usually did so imply, this would be an exception, because the references are either from the company or mere routine reports, and do not meet NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, see below DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LISTED on a major stock exchange. 1000+ employee company is not insignificant in a place like Taiwan. Darn near every pageant winner (for example) is way less significant than any public companies. This is not a promotional article, it is just factual. It was created by someone who was looking for English info on the company and surprised no Knowledge page existed. Given time and editors with good Chinese skills I am confident many additional sources can be brought to bear on this page, just like every other public company generates significant coverage in reliable sources. Please don't let English source bias lead us to kill valid topics.

There is a public good in covering public companies. They are often signifocant employers, and pension funds and the general public tend to invest in these companies. They also suport suppliers and genrally make an economic impact in the areas they operate. Hundreds of thousand of people are genrally impacted by even a small cap public company. Knowledge has become so scared of "promotion" we hae moved to giving auto-notability to Olympic athletes who won nothing and for whom we can often find no bio info (so what notability is there and who cares about them?) but we throw out profiles of companies that operate for decades employing thousands of people, selling millions in products and finding their way into the retirement account of countless people. It is messed up. Legacypac (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(1)There is a public good in covering notable public companies. public ≠ notable, or even to important or significant That we have excessive coverage in some fields is no reason to have it in others. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Except many AfDs have found Listed = Notable. Would you advocate that notability standards be set much lower for athletes and pageant winners than companies? Because this is not a matter of over coverage but of standards for notability. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree on your point, DGG, if we were talking about a penny stock with 20 employees, a MCap of $500k and only traded OTC. But with almost 1000 employees CCP is categorized according to the OECD as a "Large Enterprise" and statistically among the top 2% of enterprises in terms of size. I think Knowledge should establish some fixed rules that are based on the number of employees, listed/non-listed, mcap, world-coverage that can be measured to decide if a company is notable or not, exceptions from these rules are always possible.Jole222 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I am the main author of the article to put that upfront. I would argue the same as Legacypac. The company is listed on a major stock exchange and as such of interest to investors worldwide. With around 1000 employees and multiple suppliers, it affects thousands of people. Apart from that: The company is not a simple manufacturer that makes generic screws but has its own research and development team and almost everyone has had its products unknowingly in their hand before. No one had heard of the battery suppliers of Samsung before the Galaxy Note 7 exploded and I personally don't think it needs a scandal to make a publicly listed company notable. If the article appears to be promotional please help me to take out phrases that give that impression. I will also try to change the company history to be more relevant, but I haven't found sources that I can read, and I prefer not to base the article on google translate.

Last but not least. Countries like Taiwan, Germany or Japan have a strong base of mid-size companies that export niche products worldwide. A good example would be Farber-Castell. If we follow a strict notability argument we would have to exclude this company. After all: it just makes pencils. Jole222 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I approved this article at AfC after discussion at the AfC help desk, despite the fact that DGG had rejected it as contrary to the purpose of Knowledge and not notable. I believe the subject is likely to be sufficiently covered the meet WP:NCORP in it's own language due to it's status as a nationally important employer, manufacturer, and exchange listed company. There are 1,572,640 companies in Taiwan. Only 917 are relevant enough to be listed. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am actually not merely willing but eager to replace the GNG with subject-oriented guidelines, and would be certainly consider even such a broad one as listed companies--in fact I would consider almost any level as long as it gave a definite standard. But the discussion at AfD have always held that for most subject specific guidelines, they only give a presupposition of notability, and the actual standard is NCORP. And I generally give an opinion in line with what I think is the current interpretation. So what is being suggested here? That we have an article for every listed company and ALSO for the unlisted companies that pass NCORP? I'm not sure I would support that, but I would support Any listed company + those that an be shown to be of equal importance in some definite manner. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)