Knowledge (XXG)

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. The keep arguments are too weak for me to close this as Keep, but there's clearly not consensus to delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Techiman Senior High School (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:ORG and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Coverage consists mainly of various persons peripherally connected to the school. Coverage does not discuss the topic in detail. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - It's clear no-one is disputing the existence of this school. Keeping its location in mind, we should keep this. The end of Google is not the same place as the end of the world, and we'd keep this article on a high school if it were in Britain or the states. Perhaps we should notify the appropriate country Wikiproject. John from Idegon (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per John from Idegon and time-honoured precedent as evidenced by thousands of AfD closures. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Both keep votes are invalid since WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself is not valid since 2017, so there is not inherent notability for high school. No opinion on the school yet but this should not be closed as keep. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep precedent aside, the school's existence and notability are corroborated by the reliable sources and sustained, comprehensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Himika Akaneya (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)

Lack of independent notability for this pop group member; this should be redirected to the group (Iris (Japanese band)). Redirect keeps being reverted by author, so bringing it here for determination. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject meets NACTOR outside of the Iris context: major characters in Dance with Devils, Izetta: The Last Witch, Land of the Lustrous, ReLife, How to Keep a Mummy, Magical GIrl Site and Magical Sempai (the first two anime listed define her as the primary protagonist). Also Oricon search gives me a single for Akaneya's Magical Girl Site solo song, so it should also pass WP:NSINGER 2. So yeah, I found enough solo notability. ミラP 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP 20:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

So... a bunch of passing mentions? That does not cut the mustard, I am afraid. There needs to be better coverage than "voiced character X" to contribute towards a WP:NACTOR threshold. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Well yes and no, if you take the singer's Japanese name and add the Japanese names of the major characters involved you get hits. English sources are preferred, but major Japanese ones cant be discounted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as I found some additional information. She won an award for voice acting at the Seiyu Awards , has appeared on Nippon TV , and did an interview for Natalie. With all of the major roles for characters, it just adds to more potential information out there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff; the award is a nice find, and that's not a bad interview either (less promo than these tend to be). Cheers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I agree, the subject specific guideline for voice actors is met, multiple notable roles in notable series. Dream Focus 13:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. She won an award for voice acting, so the subject meets NACTOR, multiple notable roles in notable series. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Knowledgekid87's comments. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject meets WP:NACTOR Lightburst (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

El Limpiabotas (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 sources, and movie does not seem to be notable. KingofGangsters (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources and even unreliable sources as I couldn't find a listing at IMDb. When searching be aware that there are other films and books with the same title. If anyone does find some reliable sources coverage please ping me, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sbubby (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)

Some kind of fad that had long died; I locate coverage in only two reliable sources ( Mashable and Time) thus failing WP:GNG and WP:NWEB quite comprehensively. ∯WBG 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – per nomination. I agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. — CentronX (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I thought this was a good article, but nope! Please delete this. Bryce M (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 17:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete could very well qualify for WP:G3 because it's a hoax. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Qualifies for WP:A7; there's no indication of significance or notability, and it doesn't seem like the subject is legitimately noteworthy at all. The only sources cited are Reddit posts. Luke 03:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete wholly a Reddit phenomenon, with no significant external coverage. SD0001 (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, Per nom. not enough RS. Alex-h (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 17:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Murièle Bolay (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for writers. The most substantive notability claim here, that she is "the first official empathetic strategist", is completely unreferenced -- and it gives no context whatsoever for what "empathetic strategist" means or who confers "official" status on them, and no verifiable evidence that she was the first one. And when it comes to the referencing, 14 of the 15 footnotes are simply the publication details of her own books, and the 15th is IMDb -- but you don't make a writer notable by referencing her books to themselves as technical evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by referencing her books to media coverage about the books (e.g. critical reviews in magazines or academic journals) as evidence that they got independent attention. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much better sourcing than this.
It also warrants note that a very similar but not fully identical version was previously created by the same user and speedy deleted about a month ago at the title Murièle Solange Bolay (MSB); although that doesn't make it eligible for redeletion as a G4, I'm noting it because this version does not actually improve either the substance or the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ipswich Model Band (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)

Contested PROD by an IP with no reason given. Non-notable band. Content is taken from http://www.ipswichmodelband.org.au/, with OTRS permission, but sourcing does not establish WP:GNG or other notability guidelines – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Article needs copy cleanup (which I will attempt) but with the addition of refs since AfD nomination the page seems justified to me. Although most refs are short I think they are arguably significant, and certainly independent and reliable. Cabrils (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The band performed in competitions, they were broadcast on national radio, they performed for the Australian Governor-General (and member of the then-royal family), they were described in several independent and reliable sources. Passes WP:NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources such as Queensland Times and academic sources. It is to be expected that they should be notable as they have been performing on radio etc since 1906 Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per addition of sources, seems sufficient now. Ten Pound Hammer •

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Brian Steel (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:NARTIST. ∯WBG 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 15:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Looks fine to me. No need to delete. Bryce M (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• WP:ILIKEIT .... ∯WBG 15:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete GNG fail for lack of published sources (there are a couple, but not enough), and NARTIST fail on all counts.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Only one potential instance of WP:SIGCOV in the CNN article mentioned in the article. However, this is an interview (even if the lede into it contains some details about Steel that aren't verbatim quotes) and hence of dubious independence (or possibly simply a primary source). Nothing else showed up in my WP:BEFORE, so I don't see enough coverage in reliable sources here to sustain notability per WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete could not find any sources. All I could find was this but it's just a news release, and the CNN article is an interview. GNG is clearly not met. SD0001 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for obvious reasons. 21:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC) Sig fixed - scope_creep 13:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete does not pass any of the notability criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails GNG and NARTIST Taewangkorea (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. A lot of text, but at the end it looks like this is just a hoax. Sandstein 17:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Alejandro Almeida (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 article appears to be of a non notable minor public figure who may or may not exist. It has zero sources, and I was unable to locate any even after conducting a thorough WP:BEFORE search. The only references I could find to it anywhere where Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and a reference to a fictional character with the same name and general description (Havana born Castro acquaintance living in Florida) from a video game. In addition, I am concerned about the lack of citations in a WP:BLP. Michepman (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NOMINATOR COMMENT: Here’s the fictional character I could find with that name. Some of the biographical details from the article match this person: https://godfather.fandom.com/Alejandro_Almeida The rest of the article appears to have been clumsily plagiarized from Bill Gunter, and the editor who did it forgot to change the names after cut and pasting (see the last paragraph, which refers to Gunter by name). I’m assuming good faith that this was an honest mistake/typo, but it still makes me suspect that this person is not truly notable. Michepman (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete nothing comes close to a claim of notability, and we lack any indication of anything hat even proves this person is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Not so sure at this point; the sourcing in the article is really weak but there are a few sources available online that the nominator missed/ignored:

EDIT: I've made significant revisions and improvements to the article, and I now believe that this article should be speedy kept. It's clear now that there are significant evidence of notability and reliable sources available and a large portion of these are now transcluded. Nominator should withdraw this nom ASAP. 107.77.203.73 (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I’m not too impressed by the quality of those sources. No disrespect meant, but I had a tough time finding any meaningful corroboration of the article’s claims in the linked sources. Michepman (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Personal websites and company profiles fall well short of being considered reliable sources, especially when none of them appear to be about this Alejandro Almeida that was born in 1926. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The article does appear to be fully sourced as of the above revisions. It's not as thoroughly sourced as I would prefer to see but it's enough to fulfill the notability/verifiability standards. As a reminder to the deletionists -- it's important to base votes on the article subject's notability, NOT on the quality of the article as written (which admittedly was very poor). A current or former member of the United States Congress clearly meets the requirements of WP:NPOL -- to wit: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Please, please, PLEASE carefully review and understand these policies before weighing in on these types of discussions in the future. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

To start, you can comment as much as you'd like but you only get one vote. Almeida NEVER served in the United States Congress. He does not have an entry in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress (which has an entry on every member of Congress since 1774) nor can I find election records that indicate he ran for an office of any kind. Additionally, you have not even proved that this guy actually exists. Of the three sources in the article, two are about a very much alive Spanish Microsoft employee and the other is a personal website for a very much alive Spanish photographer and the only additional source you have provided in this AfD is an IMDB page for someone who started his acting career in 2018 Eight years after the Alejandro Almeida in question died. To be frank, do not accuse other editors of not knowing or ignoring Knowledge (XXG)'s policies when you either do not care enough to check your sources and know what are and are not reliable or are actively trying to pass off sourcing about other people by the same name to try to deceive other editors. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I fully agree that the article is not in good shape and was in worse shape even before my recent edits. There are numerous factual errors that still need to be ironed out (incl. the claim of Rep. Almeida's death in 2010).That is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is your inadvertent misapprehension of the notability of Congressman Almeida. As referenced above, there are plenty of sources that may be used to corroborate his notability. I will remind you again that, per NPOL, all statewide and federal lawmakers in the US are presumed notable. You may disagree with the quality of Almeida's article, and I don't dispute that it requires significant more work to be of useful quality, but unless you have consensus to revise WP:NPOL then your argument that Almeida is not notable falls flat. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any proof he served in Congress? Because I can't find any record of him serving in Congress, I can't even find basic election records. It's not about quality of article, you can't just say "this guy was a congressman" without a shred of proof and just expect an article to stay up. GPL93 (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - definitely agree that the sourcing is not very strong, but this person is a US Congressman and those are presumed notable. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.237.210 (talk)

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG), interesting first edit. Have you any proof Almeida actually served in the United States Congress. GPL93 (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been on Knowledge (XXG) before. As far as Almeida goes, no, I took it on faith that he was a member of Congress since this was stated in the article. If he is not a member of Congress as you claim above then I lean towards Delete as the rest of his career (as described in the article) does not seem especially noteworthy. 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.185.237.210 (talk)

Update - GPL93 (talk · contribs), 107.77.204.106 (talk · contribs) I just looked this guy up and it looks like he might be a fictional character from a video game. See here: https://godfather.fandom.com/Alejandro_Almeida There are aspects of this characters' bio that seem to be the same as the story of the fictional character. I also could not find him on the Florida govt website. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely fails notability standards then, obviously WP:NPOL doesn't count for fictional people. GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The mere fact that there is a fictional character based on (or named after) this person does not mean that we can ignore WP:NPOL or the General Notability Guideline. Again, PLEASE familiarize yourself with the applicable policies and review the sources carefully (including a THOROUGH WP:BEFORE search prior to voting on or nominating articles for deletion. The nominator has a history of inaccurate and failed WP:AFD noms including Bennye Gatteys as well as Wilfred Roy Cousins and each failed as a result of similarly dubious arguments which contradicted policy. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between those previous AfD's in that there was actual sourcing to back up notability claims. I'm sorry, but at the end of the day Competency is required to edit Knowledge (XXG). You can't see the issue with the fact that there isn't any evidence that Almeida was actually ever a member of Congress or held any elected office for that matter. GPL93 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

GPL93 I’m embarrassed by the way I handled those 2 older AFDs but I think I have improved with time. I don’t see it as a competency issue still. I noted in my nomination paragraph that this article appears to be a combination of the video game character and another real life political named Bill Gunter, including using Gunter’s name instead of Almeida’s In some places. I see that this has been removed but you can see where someone tried to patch it here:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/921390395

I am assuming good faith that this article is not a hoax, but I can find no evidence anywhere that this person exists. Michepman (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman: No need to be embarrassed by those, I've been there as well and its usually much more clear after the AfD than when you first nominated it. The reason why I invoked CIR is because the editor has tried to pass off an amalgamation of sources (none of which are reliable) about at least three different people (none of whom are actually the Alejandro Almeida in question) and despite my attempts to reasonably prove the editors claims he instead is insisting that the other recent delete voter and myself are the ones who don't understand Knowledge (XXG) policy. The editor is not making any attempt to acknowledge there's no actual sourcing, just saying its "not the best", and insisting that I am somehow ignoring NPOL on a a person who definitely never served in office and may not even actually exist. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This article started out as a poorly executed hoax and does not seem to have gotten better with time. Rockphed (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder that the civility policy applies even to WP:AFD discussions. This article has been around since 2012 and has been extensively worked on by a number of long-term editors including Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Qzd, Alexander Tendler among many others. Writing off all of this work as a hoax is needlessly incivil and inflammatory. 107.77.204.109 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Never been a member of the US House, for one thing, which makes me suspect a hoax. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Monstrous humanoid (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 creature type in Dungeons & Dragons which fails WP:NFICTION and is mostly a game guide. The term "monstrous humanoid" is also vague and might refer to numerous non-D&D topics. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete particularly vague term, and a non-notable gamecruft article overall._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There are no secondary sources indicating any notability for this creature type, and the name is too vague to be useful as a redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. -- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Vitas Varnas (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:BIO notability; zero significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. No major roles as specified by WP:NACTOR. Sources consist of credits listings for minor roles, and minor factoids from VGFacts, a video games website which the subject is affiliated with. OhNoitsJamie 13:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 9. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Like the nominator says, the sources in the article are essentially just credits listings and trivia websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. As the nomination explains, the subject of this article fails to meet notability criteria in either WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR. Peacock (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article that fails even WP:GNG. - Tom | Thomas.W 16:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, I too suspect this is a vanity article. Not notable, anyway. Bishonen | talk 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
• Delete - fails NACTOR and just looks like a promotional piece. Ravensfire (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and bring the snow. Clear vanity from the trivia from a website the subject contributes to. Varnas posts trivia to his facebook page, Dazz posts it to VGFacts (an unusable source for BLPs), Danozzz posts it here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Too early to consider notable. Barca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sri Sathya Sai Baba Center of Manhattan (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)

Zero coverage across RS. Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete No RS coverage is available that is particularly about this branch of Sri Sathya Sai Baba Centres. SD0001 (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. The delete camp has offered better arguments as to why the topic is not notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Walk for Values (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)

G11-able spam sourced entirely to in-house sources. A news-search for ("Walk for values" + Toronto) gives a single hit! ∯WBG 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - as WBG says, looks superficially well-sourced but turns out to all be primary, non-independent sources, and mostly the organisation's own website. I cannot find any sources that would meet our standards for a WP:RS. Hug 14:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• in house sources??, Toronto star is quoted, as well as edmonton newspaper, you seem to use blanket statements and brush everything else under the table . obviously an agenda here as two sai baba sites are targeted. read the article and make an informed proposal. you cry and want to delete everything you dont like."our" standards?? lol you havent posted anything for several months yet make it look like you are an upstanding part of the wikipedia community...J929 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)WBG 's friend comes to rescue to add strength in numbers, information is sourced from toronto, edmonton, NYC and new zealand... J929 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Where are you seeing cites from Toronto Star and/or Edmonton Journal? Please provide links. ∯WBG 15:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem like it's historically significant. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The movement originated in Toronto but has expanded internationally. Looking beyond the first page of Google search results, I see coverage in lots of local Canadian newspapers (which may at first be mistaken for non-reliable sources) as well as newspapers from non-Canadian cites where walks were held - see , , , (India), (New Zealand), (US), (South Africa, very brief), (another one from South Africa, although promotional).The subject is also briefly covered in this book. I think there is enough to meet GNG. SD0001 (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: Maybe, but coverage in one book doesn't make it notable. If this article were created post-WP-NPR, it wouldn't have been marked as 'reviewed' and would've been tagged for deletion. It may have notability, potentially, but as written, it isn't even close. I vote that it should be deleted, without prejudice to re-creation. If someone wants to recreate it, let it go through WP-NPR.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs)

There's a promotional mini-news-piece in the newspaper of a town-suburb, a spam-piece from a paper covering the second-largest town of a province, sources failing NEWSORG and hence RS, coverage over a student-daily blah blah ..... The book is a memoir, out of a non-reputed press and a non-reputed author ....∯WBG 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, Agree. I think we should be delete-ing this article. If it's noteworthy enough someone feels the need to re-create it, with neutrality and WP:RS, then have it go through the New Page Review process.Doug Mehus (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom ,Doug Mehus and WP:TNT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Radio Sai (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)

Sai Global Harmony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

List of programs broadcast by Radio Sai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The first two fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NWEB. Nothing much resembling to WP:SIGCOV across RS apart from this passage. The latter is a textbook violation of WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. ∯WBG 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 13:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.— Harshil 15:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both. Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:NWEB.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete List of programs broadcast by Radio Sai as well, for the same reasons plus WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE.--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment from nom - Hi, @Tdl1060 and Harshil169:- I recently came across another related article titled List of programs broadcast by Radio Sai, which I have incorporated into this same AfD and thus, have added a line to my nomination statement. Please revise your !votes accordingly, if at all. Regards, ∯WBG 13:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - all three fail basic notability.Glendoremus (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sanathana Sarathi (magazine) (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:NMAGAZINE; seeking redirect to Sathya Sai Organization. Nothing in reliable sources apart from the Sai-Baba-NRM/cult ..... ∯WBG 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete Obviously spam. — Harshil 15:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom fails WP:NMAGAZINE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Howard Murphet (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)

Why not? ∯WBG 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG 11:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Pure promotion, no reliable sources. Bishonen | talk 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC).
• Delete No independent coverage to be found about him or his book. The article, as it stands, purely serves to promote the Baba. SD0001 (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Šarūnas Raudys (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)

Written like a curriculum vitae. Tagged for notability since 2011. PRODed by Mccapra and dePRODed by Phil Bridger. I'm not an expert on WP:PROF but he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 11:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PROF#C1. His Google Scholar profile lists one publication with over 1000 cites and five more with over 100. That's enough to convince me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:PROF & possibly WP:AUTHOR. His English-language book is relatively widely held: Worldcat Identities. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

First Ones (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 article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete- I actually really like Babylon 5, but this is a monumental pile of cruft. Not a single source, and all of it is written in an in-universe plot summary style. There's no content that could be merged anywhere, and as a redirect the title would be vague enough to be both confusing and useless. Reyk _YO! 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per Reyk._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fahad Saket (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)

He might of played in the Stars League which is fine due to the WP:NFOOTY, but WP:GNG is an issue as their isn't any decent sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 07:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Soccerway confirms multiple appearances; given the length of his career at the top level in Qatar I refuse to believe there aren't sufficient Arabic-language sources (both online and offline) for GNG. GiantSnowman 08:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Will change if GiantSnowman can provide these sources, otherwise, it is simply speculation that these sources exist. I cannot find any sources other than statistics pages myself. Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Willbb234: alas, I don't read or speak Arabic. But a quick Google search for "فهد ساكت" (which the article says is the Arabic transliteration of this name) has 550,000 results... GiantSnowman 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

But my question, is how many of those results relate to the footballer. HawkAussie (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Again - I don't read or speak Arabic. But you should be able to tell me as you did WP:BEFORE, right? GiantSnowman 09:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

^Indeed. Major language barrier, so extra care is (or, at least, should be) required for these articles - arguably should be done before nominating... how can a nominator (in general, not HawkAussie directly) judge something they can't see? Qatari, or anyone from countries that use Arabic, people are very difficult to find online if you don't have an understanding of the language - I've tried before away from Knowledge (XXG), e.g. when watching the AFC Champions League, to look up players of interest - very difficult, given different people (and therefore media) use the person's rather lengthy name differently: in this case Fahad Saket or Fahad Al-Shammeri - Al Jazeera even use both! R96Skinner (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep there are more than enough statistical references to warrant a Wiki article. The subject played in several matches in a professional football league, won the foremost continental club championship in 2011, and is a former member of the Olympic national team, so I don't see why this has been brought up for deletion. You're saying that because we can't dig up some random, meaningless interview or biography of the player that he doesn't deserve an article? Elspamo4 (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - People above state that all that is needed is a news report concerning a match he played in - here's one from Al-Sharq newspaper which is an WP:RS. Here's a match report in which he played from Al-Arab (an RS), notably this article describes him scoring a goal for Al Kharaitiyat SC, which is a top-level team in Qatar (i.e., it's in the Stars League). Here's also his profile on Al-Jazeera, which again is an RS. The only thing I'd note is his full name appears to be Fahad Saket Al Shammari, but as there are other footballers by the name "Fahad Al Shammari" he does not go by this name. Meets WP:NFOOTY. All articles analysed using Google translate. FOARP (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – statistical databases and match reports are primary sources. We need secondary sources to base an article on; that's not just per WP:N, but also per our policies WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Without secondary sources, we cannot keep this article. – Levivich 21:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  How is a statistical database a primary source? It summarises the content of match reports, and is thus obviously a secondary source. FOARP (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  How are statistics anything other than primary sources? Statistics don't summarize anything; they report. A collection of statistics doesn't become a secondary source unless it engages in analysis or interpretation, etc. "Levivich scored 1 goal on October 10, 2019", is primary (reporting what happened, no analysis or interpretation); "Levivich scored 10 goals in the 2019 season" is primary (same); "Levivich had a good season in 2019, having scored 10 goals" is secondary – an analysis or interpretation of primary sources (the goals-scored statistics). Google "are statistics primary or secondary", every result seems to say statistics are primary and not secondary sources. Statistics databases like Soccerway are almanacs or directories of statistics... a primary source. SW doesn't tell you who had a good season or a bad season, who is the best or the worst, who improved or deteriorated; it just reports the numbers. An article that is only sourced to Soccerway is not "based on secondary sources" as required by NOR. – Levivich 19:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Additionally, here's more coverage of the subject 1 2 3 4 5 FOARP (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Each of these is a brief mention in a match report or similar; I don't see any of them as in-depth enough to be WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 05:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NFOOTY. As I see it, the real PROBLEM with this article is that there are no valid in-line sources. In such cases the references template should be preferred. gidonb (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per FOARP and passes WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - NFOOTY is met, and there's a lot of mentions in the Arabic media. User:Levivich's claim that statistics like Soccerway are primary sources, is obviously mindbogglingly false! Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep case for deletion is based on an inadvertent misreading of the media sources in Arabic language. These are secondary media / journalism sources, not primary sources or raw statistical data. Clear and easy keep. 208.185.237.210 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See also undeleting admin's consent. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Not an obviously notable sportsperson. I declined a WP:G5 per discussion here, suggesting AfD, so here we are. Ritchie333 10:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:G5, creator is a banned sockmaster. Kb03 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per WP:G5, creator is a banned sockmaster and the admin should know policy.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Clearly G5. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – unless someone wants to demonstrate that this subject is notable and can provide sources to prove it, there's no reason to keep it around. WP:G5 is set up specifically so that banned users don't waste the community's time on AfDs like this. – bradv🍁 01:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORTS. Makes no attempt to establish any notability. — Ched (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Derius (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)

Finnish bandy and football club, established 1990, seems no longer to exist. Played one year in the third division, all other seasons in even lower divisions. I was unable to find reliable indepth sources about this club, which seems not to have received attention beyond routine coverage or very local articles. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Slightly clarification to @Fram: - the Kolmonen ('third division') is actually the fourth level... GiantSnowman 13:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Fram (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. bd2412 T 05:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Kathaleen Land (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 only claim of notability of the person seems to be that she was interviewed for a movie, and was a prototype of one of the characters of the movie. One of the four references does not mention her; one more mentions her name among hundreds of other names (and the link there is not clickalbe). Is that sufficient for notability? Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 9. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I am using Twinkle, meaning something got wrong during the execution of the code. I do not transclude AfD's manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like a respectable bio-stub. At the very least, this is a case for a merge/redirect to Hidden Figures. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Making my sentiment official. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: decent bio stub on a historical figure. Knowledge (XXG) would not be improved by removing this article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources indicate adequate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep She is a prominent figure in mathematics and the reliable sources like Guardian proves notability of this person. The only thing to be concerned is the article needs to be further expanded. Abishe (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  No, this is not correct, she is absolutely not a prominent figure in mathematics. I do not see any evidence of her passing WP:PROF or even actually having a PhD.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Meets GNG to my satisfaction (I don't know why the book Hidden Figures is only given as "Further reading"). WP:PROF is just special pleading by sad academics. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete the coverage is notsignificant enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Ryan Driller (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)

Porncruft. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. Most articles of this type havw already been deleted, recognizing that porn industry awards are generally marketing devices handed out by promotional businesses to promote their advertisers or clients. What little substantive text there is in the article was cut-and-pasted from the subject's BLP without proper attribution. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect – All awards, in any industry, meet OP's characterization. The items listed are notable awards with articles: AVN Award, NightMoves Award, XBIZ Awards and XRCO Award. It also appears all the information is cited. We do not require secondary sources for industry awards such as 71st Primetime Emmy Awards. Why would we suddenly now require secondary sources for this particular industry? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons laid out by the nom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Coffee. If there isn't anything worth merging, then just delete. Rockphed (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN for lack of secondary coverage. Nothing to merge, so it's a 'delete' for me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The fact Ryan's page can display the lists without effecting that article, there doesn't seem to be any need to merge.TenderKing (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LISTN. --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per coffee. Recently depreciated pornbio does not necessitate the deletion of a highly awarded porn actor. WP:ANYBIO could apply. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Porn awards tend to be industry self-promotional fluff, and this list is no exception. As for Coffeeandcrumbs' argument, the Primetime Emmy Awards example gets plenty of secondary coverage, undermining the editor's argument. PORNBIO was taken down because, without reliable sources, all that's left is self-promotion and the porn itself. Also porn award's having a Knowledge (XXG) article stopped conferring notability to its winners many years ago. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap and prevent recreation. If someone reverts the redirect, we have BRD and BLOCKs to deal with it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Pernicon (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 fictional monster. Fails WP:NFICTION. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. TTN (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Minor, even in comparison to other D&D monsters. There are virtually no non-primary sources discussing the creature. Rorshacma (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Crabman (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 fictional monster. One mention in a "Most underrated monsters" list is not enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - The topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable creature. The one non-primary source is extremely brief, as the coverage consists of a few jokey sentences. Rorshacma (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Vivian Miranda (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 article's sources are not independent - the subject's employer, and a press release from the institution that gave her an award. I can't find any independent sources giving her significant coverage, and so can't see how she passes WP:GNG; she is an early career scholar, having completed her PhD in 2015, and I'm not seeing how she passes WP:NPROF either. Regretfully, I think this is a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Postdocs are usually not yet notable (that's still true for assistant professors, the next step up the ladder), and an award to support a postdoc is also not enough for notability. It's difficult to find the astronomical Vivian Miranda publications among all the non-astronomy publications by other Vivians Miranda, and among all the other astronomy publications by Vinicius and Valmin and other Vs Miranda, but it's clear from the difficulty of finding them that they're not cited highly enough to make a surprise case for WP:PROF#C1. There is a little popular-press media for being transgender but I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Return to Draft world It looks like this was promoted from sandbox-draft status the same day it was created. I don't think there's yet a case for passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG, but the content isn't so objectionable that it has to be expunged. It can live on as a userspace draft indefinitely, or in Draft space proper for months (coming back to edit an academic biography to reset the G13 clock every semester is not so arduous). Also, I think the press release from Brookhaven counts as adequately "independent": it's by the organization who chose to give her an award, not by Miranda herself, and not by her employer or by any of the schools where she studied. The same goes for the notice by the Sociedade Brasileira de Física. Alternatively, we could add a little bit to the Leona Woods article about the award named in her honor, mention Miranda as the first recipient, and (for the time being) redirect this page there. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have been working on this article today and am continuing to do so. I believe it more robustly demonstrates GNG notability at this time. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We have standards for what it takes to be notable as an academic. They are in WP:PROF, not GNG. She clearly fails to meet any of them. So any notability will have to rely on non-academic material, not on puffing up the details of academic projects in which she is a minor participant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • My understanding of NACADEMIC is, based on it saying "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines" is that an academic who does not meet NACADMIC but still meets GNG is still notable. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Concur. An academic that fails NACADEMIC but passes GNG is notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Of course. But the argument for notability will have to be that she is covered in nontrivial detail in independent reliable sources, not that she won the Woods Lectureship nor that she is the only Brazilian on a multi-billion-dollar academic project. Incidentally, is "trans" as a noun rather than an adjective considered acceptable language, or is it a bad translation of the source titles? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I think it's a bad translation. The GLAAD style guide, for example, treats trans as a short form of transgender, and says that the latter should be used as an adjective, not a noun. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete people who are still at the post-doc stage are almost never notable. Nothing here suggests otherwise for this individual. I have had enough articles on Ph.D. holding professors with several years of teaching and multiple publications deleted to know that Miranda is no where near making the cut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough there yet for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC).

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

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 17:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Concentra Financial (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)

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. The edit history comments even remark on the myriad problems with WP:NPOV and wikipuffery. This is a textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory or the yellow pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Note to AfD Closer Although Concentra Bank has never been created, as that is the current name of this bank, I'm wondering if it is possible to cross-list/cross-post the red notice of the article's deletion? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for this page to pass WP:CORP, or at least I was not able to find any in my WP:BEFORE. One thing I would say is - no, WP:PERMASTUB (an essay-level guide, not policy) is not a WP:DELREASON. As the essay itself explains, there are plenty of permanent stub articles that are perfectly viable as articles and should not be deleted. The stub articles that should be deleted are to be deleted for reasons other than being simply stubs. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  FOARP, I am fine with you amending the original rationale to place a period following "notable" and deleting from "or" to "permastub" if you like. That's probably the weakest of the arguments for deletion. I think it's sufficient to delete on WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH alone. Just make sure you put an edit summary that the proponent authorized your editing the rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARY and press-releases and as such fails WP:NORG. I'd suggest a merge to some list of Canadian banks or such, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Piotrus, Thanks for your further reply to the trend in Canadian credit union and bank stubs and their non-notability. As to your suggestion about merging with a list, that's problematic in that I don't find redirecting Concentra Financial to a list, template, or other namespace to be particularly helpful. As well, it sometimes creates double redirects in that when an article page becomes a redirect, that article page is still listed in the footer box of similar companies so when the user clicks on that name of related companies, they end up back on the same page, if that makes sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Double redirects are easy to fix, just remove the links to them from the list.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    Piotrus, Sorry, I don't think I was clear. You see, in Template:Canadian banks, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. I just don't think that's helpful. Does that make more sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    • It does. Red links are for topics that are deemed notable but not created yet (WP:RED). Deleted entries should be unlinked. I am unsure what is the WP:MOS take on such links in templates - unlik or remove entirely? Perhaps remove, and make a note on talk that such template should only list notable banks, with the template perhaps using the word major, like 'major Canadaian banks' etc.. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted A7/G11. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

TY.13.R.LYONS (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)

Autobiographical article, with no reliable sources. I couldn't find anything to indicate the subject would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG, only spotify, instagram and a primary promotional source. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete This is arguably a speedy delete, A7. No notability asserted. shoy (reactions) 12:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Credit Union Central of Manitoba (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)

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. This is arguably an example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory or the yellow pages. Unless someone, or some people, want to do some research and write an organizational history from a neutral point of view, it should be deleted. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. The worst of the bunch of recently nominated Canadian bank stubs so far, this one has next to no references. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 17:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Concepts of Physics (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 evidence of notability presented in the article. A WP:BEFORE search gives a few articles on the author with passing mentions that it is used for the IIT entrance exams in India (e.g. , ), but the textbook does not have WP:GNG-level notability.

Similar to this AfD on another IIT entrance exam textbook. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete: The article should be deleted. Unimportant data not required by any general reader.Lichinsol (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Struck sock vote. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Unexceptional textbook. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Though not familiar with book notability guidelines on Knowledge (XXG), I'll defer to the proponent and those who concur. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. I checked this on Google Scholar. It does not seem to be highly cited, with only 24 citations , . I checked World Cat and it seems to be listed in only four university libraries . Three of these are in U.S and one is in India. Not much traction for a book published in 1999. It also doesn't seem to have gone past this edition - which would seem to mean it is outdated . There is a related title published in 1993 of which this could be a later edition. And again, only four university libraries carry this. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Keep per WP:NBOOK and WP:TEXTBOOKS. One of the above links says that millions of copies have been sold . The second link says this book is the "most read textbook for high school physics" and is "widely considered the Bible of Physics" (probably in India) . Because this is a high school textbook, this would explain why it is not in many university libraries. I'm thinking of changing my Ivote. Stay tuned. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I noticed that as well, but these sources still aren't really significant coverage on the actual textbook and those claims don't quite support the other points of WP:BOOKCRIT. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The coverage appears to be significant enough, in this instance, to pass notability criteria for books per WP:TEXTBOOKS. Also, it does meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1 and #5 according to the sources. Common sense is also applicable per WP:TEXTBOOKS. What I mean is, occasionally, some things don't fit neatly into the notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree that the sources suggest anything remotely close to BOOKCRIT #5, which is about the author being so notable that all of their works are too. Sure, WP:TEXTBOOKS tells us that common sense applies. Being a popular high school physics textbook doesn't fit the notability bill in my opinion though. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

OK. I misread BOOKCRIT #5, I thought it said something else. However, the subject is still applicable per BOOKCRIT #1. Per WP:TEXTBOOKS, where not only common sense applies but also it is surprisingly covered in the media (as mentioned above), it has been influential since 1999, and "has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions" - since it was published. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• • • • MarkH21, I agree. I see no problem with deleting this book. I thought Knowledge (XXG) was not a bibliography? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Weak, because I'm just going on what I can see in the article, haven't done any research on my own. Even if this book were notable, the article is such a mess, WP:TNT applies. But, I am amused by the comment above that the book is "outdated" because it was published in 1996. It covers mechanics, waves and optics ... thermodynamics, electromagnetism, modern physics and relativity. What could possibly have changed about any of those topics since my 40-year old copy of Halliday and Resnick was printed? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Central 1 Credit Union (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)

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. The edit history comments even remark on the myriad problems with WP:NPOV and wikipuffery. This is a textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory or the yellow pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to have Knowledge (XXG) articles just because they exist — they need to be the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, and are not entitled to keep articles sourced entirely to their own self-published content about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Bearcat, Yeah, and I thank Piotrus for pointing that out, so that's why I nominated this. I did a search for it and Concentra Financial but all of their roughly 10-14,000 Google articles are merely corporate directories, listings, primary sources, or inconsequential media coverage and blog posts (most commonly referring to executive departures and hires). Thanks for validating that thinking. -DM Doug Mehus (talk) 15:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete As said above, fails WP:NCORP. There are practically no reliable secondary sources available. The only sources provided are their website(pages cited no longer available) and a primary source(page cited also unavailable). Luke 00:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hei314, Thanks, Luke, and thank you for your contributions to the AfD process. I think this is a good example of where a company with billions of dollars in assets can simply not meet WP:NCORP on any basis. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Prova-nome (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Factorion (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 seems to be mostly WP:OR. While there is an external link to MathWorld, the article on MathWorld is very short, and other longer articles on MathWorld (like Factorial sums) do not have corresponding articles on Knowledge (XXG). The only references in this article are to OEIS integer sequences, and just as with MathWorld, there are other integer sequences on OEIS who do not have corresponding articles on Knowledge (XXG). Meanwhile, the vast majority of the article is unreferenced and seemes to be original research. For the notability and original research issues, this article ought to be deleted. Prova-nome (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Along with the book reference already in the article, there are two journal publications JSTOR 3620841 and JSTOR 3620842 (short pieces in a problem section, but nevertheless journal publications) that provide nontrivial detail about the subject. Note that this article was nominated for deletion several minutes after I replied to the nominator's query about the sequence on WT:WPM providing these references and requesting that the nominator perform WP:BEFORE before making a nomination; despite that, the nomination pretends that the references in the article itself are the only ones available. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I had closed out of the window of the talk page of Wikiproject Mathematics and so did not see your reply to my post until now. If only I could figure how to withdraw the proposal. Prova-nome (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

KokobyKhloe (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 subject of this article WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. Some of the sources in the article are PR stuff and others are interviews. I don't see sources independent of her. The subject was a finalist at two non-notable beauty pageants. Participating in a Big Brother show doesn't make one notable.  Versace1608  03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: It is not even universally accepted on Knowledge (XXG) that the winner of BBN should be regarded as notable, not to talk about just being an housemate. I am not seeing any other guideline being met. References are just the usual news coverage that is expected from a reality contestant in the show. At the moment there is nothing suggesting that WP:10YT will be met.HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 Wrong forum.. Merger requests are to be made on the article talk page. See WP:MERGE. Editors are nonetheless free to act on this discussion. Sandstein 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Brookfield Properties Retail Group (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 am actually nominating this for the purpose of merging rather than deleting. I feel that in order to get eyes on this discussion, bringing it here will help. WP:COI editor Dvruthven, proposed that Brookfield Properties Retail Group be merged into Brookfield Property Partners at Talk:Brookfield_Properties#Merger_proposal. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment It's not specifically subsidiary, but rather a division or a business unit, so it may be notable in its own right, or it may be better merged into Brookfield Asset Management, with links to the individual subsidiary pages. The list of assets could be created as a "List of assets owned by Brookfield Properties" yadda yadda yadda. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment @TonyTheTiger: Just to clarify, my proposal was to merge Brookfield Properties Retail Group into Brookfield Properties, not into Brookfield Property Partners. This is because the retail group is now a division of Brookfield Properties, so that is the most appropriate place for the content. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks User:TonyTheTiger for doing that. I must point out that Brookfield Properties Retail Group is a division, not a subsidiary as its Infobox indicates. Do we know that all its listed assets belong to Brookfield Property Partners subsidiary Brookfield Properties? If so, then the merger is one possibility. However, I note the articles lack neutral point of view, and it may fail WP:Notability on grounds of lack of significant press coverage on its own right and, crucially, as currently written. So, I'm wondering if the following merger proposal alternative might be in order? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Merge with Brookfield Properties, but strongly also recommend performing a second-step merger whereby Brookfield Properties (a likely stub-class article when you cut out the wikipuffery and lack of NPOV) is merged into Brookfield Property Partners, as a separate and shrunken down section (with improved prose). If that second stage merger is not done, or even if it is, I recommend stripping out the list of Brookfield Properties Retail Group's assets and creating or merging them into a List of assets owned or controlled by Brookfield Asset Management page. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Hi @Dmehus: I'm the Brookfield employee who proposed the merger to Brookfield Properties. I would welcome the removal of any puffery currently remaining in the Brookfield Properties article. (In fact, I requested the removal of a few lines that seemed overly promotional in my most recent edit request.) However, Brookfield Properties and Brookfield Property Partners are distinct companies with separate identities, each of which is notable in its own right. Their notability is borne out by significant coverage in reliable sources already cited in the respective articles, though I'm sure more sources can be found if necessary. Thanks! Dvruthven (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  Dvruthven, Thanks for your reply, but I'd point out separate companies does not equal notability. We have cases where small- to mid-sized Canadian banks and credit unions have been deleted because they amount to little more than directory listings and/or are stubs. I think there's a strong case for merging, in a second-stage merger, Brookfield Properties into Brookfield Property Partners as a separate section in order to improve the one from being a stub-class article to a starter or even a C-class article. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Prova-nome (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Polydivisible number (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 seems to be entirely WP:OR. Since the article's creation in 2003, this entire article had for sixteen years and still has now a total of zero references. The only external link in the article links to a discussion on a mathematical problem that is only very remotely connected to the topic at hand. And while there are a few OEIS integer sequences sprinkled here and there about polydivisible numbers, so there are many other OEIS integer sequences that do not have corresponding Knowledge (XXG) articles. If an entry on the OEIS is the only reason for it's existence, then it isn't really notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). This, along with the original research issues, is reason for deletion. Prova-nome (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is interesting. There are four or so links to OEIS and there are mentions of it on several blogs, etc. However, I didn't find it in anything like MathWorld, so otherwise it is completely lacking in references. I also suspect that it is almost entirely WP:OR. So I would probably delete it unless some good references are found. Bubba73 03:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. A lack of sources in the article does NOT mean that the article isn't notable. In fact, it was never mentioned by the nominator whether sources exist, but only that the one external link isn't competent enough. AFD is not cleanup also means that AFD isn't an excuse for people to add sources to the article. While it feels good to say that it fails WP:OR due to no sources being present, WP:OR only applies to content in which no reliable, published sources exist. And reliable, published sources definitely exist, which also proves notability for being an important number sequence. Utopes (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The sequences are referenced, but are there any references for the math? Bubba73 03:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. A little searching found coverage of this in at least four books: Malcolm Lines A Number for your Thoughts (1986) , David Wells The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers (1997) , Noel Botham The Amazing Book of Useless Information (2008) , and Matt Parker Things to Make and Do in the Fourth Dimension (2014) . I think that's enough to demonstrate ongoing interest in this concept (even though such base-dependent sequences don't interest me personally) and show a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Those references need to be added to the article to establish notability of the subject. But is the mathematics referenced? Bubba73 04:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
    • They do not need to be added to establish notability. It is existence of sources, not their addition to articles, that establishes notability. See WP:ARTN. And AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing-digit sum (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 seems to be entirely WP:OR. The article was self-published by MagistraMundi in 2014, and the only significant edits other than by MagistraMundi are by the IP address 173.230.18.196 in the last few weeks. The external link at the bottom of the page is to MagistraMundi's personal blog (which can be verified by taking a look at the past history of the page). The only reference in the article (there are two, but they link to the same web page) are to an OEIS integer sequence, and there are hundreds of thousands of other OEIS integer sequences, many of which do not have Knowledge (XXG) articles, making this topic not really notable enough to be on Knowledge (XXG). Prova-nome (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - There is nothing more beautiful than mathematics and nothing more mathematical than beauty. What are the notability guidelines for mathematical concepts? Michepman (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. As far as I can find, this appears to be OR about a wholly non-notable concept. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. My searches in Google Scholar came up blank. I agree that this looks like OR. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete In addition to the points made above, the OEIS calls the two cited sequences "easy" and does not refer to either as "nice" . Nor do those pages have the body of comments and references typical for a topic that has generated some excitement. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - totally WP:OR and not even notable. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Loaded Boards (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)

Skateboard manufacturer that does not appear to be sufficiently notable to sustain an article. Provided external sources are limited to one unabashed promo interview. Anything else I can find is in-house. Currently this article does not serve any function other than advertisement. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 23:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - sources are all primary or non-independent and I cannot find anything else. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Hug 12:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep notable per WP:NEXIST a WP:BEFORE is revealing. The nominator calls out the promotional or advertising feel, but WP:NOTCLEANUP Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Throwing buzzwords without backup into the room is not helpful, nor does it make you sound smart. Show your sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you meant to say acronyms because I did not use any buzzwords. You should look up the useful acronyms I have invoked: acronyms are often used in AfDs as shortcuts, and these particular ones are relevant to my ivote on this AfD discussion. WP:NOTCLEANUP Consider that Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Knowledge (XXG) has no deadline. Articles which are promotional require editing, not deletion. Lightburst (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You missed my point. Throwing out WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for evaluation. In their absence, the article functions only as an advertisement, not as encyclopedic coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 08:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Exploratory product development (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)

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

Doesn't seem notable, fails WP:GNG. All the sources here and elsewhere are by the two proponents of the approach, their business, and the group that gave them a grant. In general, when I come across the phrase "exploratory product development" in web pages turned up by Google, it's being used generically, not to refer to the methodology of these people. Google Scholar is the same. "Exploratory PD" also turns up nothing to support WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: This is, at very best, an example of WP:TOOSOON, and at worst the actually-funded-somehow academic analogue to a drinking game indigenous to a particular fraternity house. The prodigious use of vanity capitalization/a CamelCase initialism is indicative of the substance and notability deficiencies. Thank you for nominating this, Largoplazo. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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 as premature; no prejudice against recreation at an appropriate time. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:TOOSOON, and user is continuously adding false information across multiple articles about a person named 'Louis Walsh' joining the panel, when this is completely fan-created information. Even added start + end dates of season when neither is known at all as of currently. Magitroopa (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per TOOSOON. Wholeheartedly agree. Utopes (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Premature, completely unsourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - For two reasons: 1. Goes against WP:TOOSOON, as there is no source information (via reliable sources) to confirm that a 15th season is in production for the time being. 2. Inclusion of false information - I have checked the internet, but there are no news stories confirming that Louis Walsh, who has judged X Factor and Ireland's Got Talent, and also been a guest judge on Britain's Got Talent for two seasons, is planning to replace Simon Cowell as a judge. A firm, final warning, in that regard, should be made to the user conducting this; failure to heed that warning should prompt editors to have an admin deal with them. GUtt01 (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Every year we go through this; barring the complete dissolution of NBC, we know a new season is happening, but October is way too early to create a new season article. However, this is possibly the return of the same vandal who has continued their Sisyphean effort to fake season ten and season nine's existence in the same time period. It may be time to start WP:SALTing these season article titles (yes, up to at least season 20) until we have solid concrete details regarding the season start. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ethereal filcher (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)

Minor, non-notable fictional creature. There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this creature in any depth, either present in the article, or found upon searching. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Not sure where we currently stand on creatures from the Dungeons & Dragons series and where we draw the line in terms of notability, but maybe this cateogry can help, .TenderKing (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Ethan Baker (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:NPOL and Baker does not appear to meet WP:GNG outside his campaigns. Article currently has no reliable sources. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable or too soon. Rmhermen (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't seem like he is notable enough at the moment. With some solid references that could change.TenderKing (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. People do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles just for running as candidates in elections they have not won, so neither the fact that he's currently running for mayor nor the fact that he ran in a state legislature primary in 2018 make him notable. And, for that matter, this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, with no evidence whatsoever of any non-trivial reliable source coverage in real media being shown — the only newspaper citation in the entire article is just an overview of the mayoral election as a whole, not an article that demonstrates why Ethan Baker would be more notable than Dave Henderson. Troy MI is not in the very narrow range of cities that get to confer notability on their city councillors, so being an incumbent city councillor does not make him more encyclopedically notable than other mayoral candidates — and even if he wins the mayoral election, he still won't be automatically entitled to have an article just because he exists, and would qualify for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) only if an article could be written about his political career that was much more substantive and much better sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete even if he were elected mayor that would not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable or too soon. sorry. Doesnt seem to meet WP:GNG --Dreerwin (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

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