Wikipedia:XfD today

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

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

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Quick Tv Africa[edit]

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

Non-notable movement lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 22:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Karlie Redd[edit]

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

Simply put, she is a non-notable VH1 personality (and VH1 should not even ethically be a reference here since that’s her employer) and there are no reliable sources to establish notability outside of Love and Hip Hop series. The fact that the article keeps saying facts about her life are unverifiable is my point in itself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sedition (UK band)[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade, lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No hits in major searches, no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 22:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 22:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Blackout (musical group)[edit]

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

The main source for this article is Blood & Honour. There's also a Swedish metal fan blog, and a single possibly RS, a book, “The White Nationalist Skinhead Movement: UK & USA, 1979 - 1993”, Feral House, 2015, by Forbes and Stampton, the latter of whom appears to have no other work to his name. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Oprah Sideverson[edit]

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

1.6 million subscribers is quiet a few, but I cannot find any actual 3rd party sources for this person. As such, I am a bit unsure about notability, there are plainly a lot of people following this particular person, but I cannot find anything written about him. Xevus11 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Parnia Porsche[edit]

Parnia Porsche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Christine Weick[edit]

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

Much as it may delight us to document the crazy antics of this lady, the only incident that gained any mainstream attention at all was the original slushie-throwing incident, and even that only made HuffPo, scarcely a neutral commentator on right wing people. The rest of the sources are garbage and Google shows nothing better. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 21:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

22 Weeks[edit]

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

A short film by an unknown filmmaker based on an article in WorldNetDaily (yes, really). I cannot trace any significant coverage in any source that approaches reliability. No professional reviews. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Chris King (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. His article was created based on his political candidacy, but he lost, so he fails WP:NPOL. Coverage is focused on his candidacy and not his life in business, so this fails WP:GNG as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga[edit]

List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Only has 18 international centuries, falls short of the minimum of 25 required for a list. StickyWicket (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Coldhart[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. The first source cited in the article is a YouTube video; the second source cited does not mention "Coldhart". Except for this source, an online search for secondary sources to support notability yielded only trivial mention. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources, except for this. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The YouTube video is an interview on the channel of a reputable music blog. As far as the name, he's gone by both when uploading music. Mostly "Coldhart" which is why I named the article that. Sromero78 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
"Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability" per WP:PSTS. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Corona Wind Projects[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP.

Coverage is located in an extremely niche-area of energy-resource-websites.

As things stand, Ref 1 is the website of the manufacturer, Ref 2 is from a source which claims to engage in paid-promotion and Ref 3 is slightly better (with some acclaim) but equally dubious.

Overall, nothing apart from the fact that setting up of a huge wind-farm has been approved by PRC, (which does not even guarantee a completion).See WP:NOTNEWS. WBGconverse 18:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Circle time[edit]

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

Article reads like a non-notable essay. Contested prod. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep The topic is highly notable as the article lists numerous sources and a selection of books about the topic is listed below. The current state of the article seems reasonable and, in any case, any deficiences of style or substance are not a reason to delete per our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:BITE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Note also that the article has existed for over 12 years and has had numerous editors and thousands of readers. The recent attempts to delete the article seem to have been made without any discussion or engagement with the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Quality Circle Time in the Primary Classroom: Your Essential Guide
  2. Developing Circle Time: Taking Circle Time Much Further
  3. Quality Circle Time in the Secondary School: A Handbook of Good Practice
  4. Circle Time for the Very Young: For Nursery, Reception and Key Stage 1 Children
  5. Circle Time for Adolescents
  6. Magic Circles: Self-Esteem for Everyone in Circle Time
  7. Circles, PSHE and Citizenship: Assessing the Value of Circle Time in Secondary School
  8. Math Activities for Circle Time
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lynn Styles[edit]

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

Bio article has been unsourced since at least 2015, so no evidence of notability demonstrated or of meeting WP:BASIC. I've found a couple of sources – [1] (this one even describes the subject as "little known") and [2] – but they look to be passing mentions only. Further, subject does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR – one "significant" role in Foreign Exchange (Australian TV series), maybe two in Fair City, but looks to be debatable... In any case, unsourced WP:BLPs have no place on Wikipedia, and this one is unlikely to be shown to be notable. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students[edit]

Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A horrifically-written article on a group that doesn't appear to be notable. "Infozine" doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and other references are trivial: an example is the CNN one, which refers Danielle Grijalva, director of the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students but doesn't discuss the group further. I see no evidence this "group" is anything other than a DBA for Danielle Grijalva. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

A//Political[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) No meaningful hits in searches of Google, Google Books, EBSCOhost. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. PROD'd in 2009. czar 17:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 17:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa[edit]

Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Google, Google News, Google Books etc. all draw blanks for any coverage at all of this book/documentary in independent reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. There's a review on Popmatters.com but this appears to be a blog. There's also a publicity piece written by the agent on Publisher's Weekly but this isn't independent. Lacks notability, verifiability per WP:GNG and WP:V FOARP (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (utc) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (utc) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (utc) 19:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Vi Robbins[edit]

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

Non-notable old lady. She was the oldest person in a given geographical area for a few months, she volunteered... and yeah, that's it. At most we're left with 2 paragraphs, thus WP:NOPAGE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Myra Nicholson[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. The dispute over her living arrangements is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and the rest is about how she lived, she got old, she died. Maybe worth a minibio somewhere, but certainly not a full page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOPAGE. Best recorded on a list because nothing else of any import is known. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Voice of the Philippines (season 3)[edit]

The Voice of the Philippines (season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Show cancelled and replaced by the upcoming Search for the Idol Philippines Hiwilms (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Guinean films of 2009[edit]

List of Guinean films of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films, like all of the tiny non-notable stubs this editor has created. Softlavender (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Could have just done it without an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Close As Ajf773 pointed out, this did not require an AfD. The discussion can be closed. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Guinean films of 2007[edit]

List of Guinean films of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Another tiny stub, with only FR-wiki wikilinks, that needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why didn't you just redirect it yourself then (or at least combine these into one group nom)? Starting four separate AFDs for the same issue with the same related lists is just a waste of process and time. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. And yes, this could have been speedily redirected without an AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Close As Ajf773 pointed out, this did not require an AfD. The discussion can be closed. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ozamiz–Oroquieta Road[edit]

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

To be merged to N79 highway (Philippines) hueman1 (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Student Representation at the University of Hawaii[edit]

Student Representation at the University of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There does not appear to be any claim to notability here. What we have is in effect an exerpt from Chapter 7 of the UH System Policies and Procedures & Chapter 7 of Board of Regents Policy. Tagishsimon (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Indian winners in International beauty pageants[edit]

List of Indian winners in International beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

There is no indication that the topic as such (as opposed to individual winners) is notable and meets WP:LISTN based on coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The same probably applies to most entries in Category:Nations at beauty pageants, so this is kind of a test nomination. In all of these cases, I don't see this as much more than attempts at nationalist posturing. There are beautiful people all over the world, so there's no particular link between nationality and beauty pageant victories. In addition, the information is presumably already present in the results pages of the various notable pageants themselves. Sandstein 12:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I was expecting this to be more or less complementary to Category:Indian beauty pageant winners, but it seems both narrower (only including "international" beauty pageants and excluding intranational ones), and broader (including individual winners who don't merit articles). I think if there's a valid core it's one that looks more like the category, as a standard list of notable people of a particular nationality by accomplishment/occupation, and the list can in turn be organized under headers for the pageants. postdlf (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Adam Cooley[edit]

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

Sources for this artist are mostly glancing mentions and non-independent items. I could not actually find or verify a single independent source online, although at least one is mentioned in the article. While autobiography may not be a deletion rationale in itself, it's worth noting that one SPA has edited the page for two years, and all the images uploaded, including a self-portrait, have been under the account "Adam Cooley". In any case, it's GNG Fail for lack of independent RS in multiple sources that cover the subject in-depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - this self-promotional, possibly autobiographical article created by an SPA in on a non-notable artist who has shown in galleries that have no historical or internet credibility, with one exception, the Tokyo Met Museum. However a search of the museum's collection does not show the artist is represented. Does not meet notability standards nor warrant an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:ARTIST and citations don't check out. Cannot find anything when I do newspaper searches. Netherzone (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - it seems to me that the sources are admissible and objective. The problem is that the sources come from Japan and are not known or accessible as readily to those outside of Japan. For example, ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ is a well respected art magazine in Japan that has been in existence since 1975. It is a well respected and historically relevant Japanese art magazine that is still being published. The artist in question lives and works in Japan and by all accounts seems to be thriving well in that market. There are other very famous artists in the Japanese market who never get covered in the west. Wikipedia allows people to access more than just the uber-famous and it seems very useful for comparative studies or just general knowledge to be able find references to people, events and things that don’t get exposure in the west. The question comes down to how can references and citations that have significant relevance for one part of the world be proportionately represented in another part of the world. The galleries in Japan that are located in the Hankyu Department stores and Daimaru Department stores are considered highly prestigious venues for artists to exhibit. The most successful artists in Japan exhibit there. Again the artist in question has exhibited in both and this is referenced in the aforementioned magazine ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ the problem seems to be the fact that the relative value of exhibiting in a Department store is not proportionately represented and the historical relevance and prestige of the source -the magazine- is also not proportionately valued.KevinJardine (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin above editor KevinJardine has made 300 or so edits over 3 years, ONLY to the Adam Cooley article. It's either the article subject or his mom. Clear WP:DUCK. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if ‘Gekkan Bijutsu’ or these Department stores were significant, that alone isn't enough. --Theredproject (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • To be fair I am neither the subject nor related to the subject in any way. I work in the art industry in Japan as a translator and have nothing to do with selling or promotion. My goal is to document this active art market. Examples of this are the groups Hakujitsu-kai and Nitten . Hakujitsu-kai is a painter’s guild in Japan where many of the top artists are or have been members but you'd be hard pressed to find their names or the group itself in any western media or websites. There is virtually no information about them to English speakers. It’s a shame because this is where the Japanese art market is thriving; not only in the pop art of Takashi Murakami or Yayoi Kusama. Wikipedia is able to create a truly detailed network of macro-relations to micro-relations and this is my motivation for writing.
    I choose this particular artist because he is originally from New York and it was easier to find materials and references about him in English. This artist is well established in the Japanese market which I think is quite remarkable. I researched his work, called newspapers and magazines and any other sources I could find to meet the acceptable guidelines for this article.
    I am preparing to document a few of the most famous artists working in Japan who are valued highly for Japanese art collectors. Finding, translating and using certain Japanese publications is a difficult task and I am not paid to write Wikipedia articles nor do I gain anything from doing so. I simply see gaps with regards to information on the real Japanese art market and I’d like to play a part filling in those gaps.
    I have made 300 or so edits to only one article because I am the one who started the article. Doesn't it make sense that I would keep improving it? We all know how hard it is to find references that meet all of the proper citation guidelines. I am improving the article and thanks to intelligent critiques I am able to improve the integrity of my writing.
    However, I’m concerned in this case about the integrity of the critique. The language is openly malicious and meant to be provocative. Presuming I am the artist or the artist’s mother is unfair and not a sound argument towards the deletion of the article. A presumption is an opinion not an argument.
    In addition to this, a casual search finds biographical articles with less than five citations yet the article in question has significantly more and from diverse sources -where is the line to be drawn?KevinJardine (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
It's quite clear who you are. You created the article and added multiple images of Adam Cooley. You uploaded over a dozen images, which were taken down due to copyright concerns. But then, miracle of miracles, Adam Cooley (even though you're appparently "neither the subject nor related to the subject in any way") somehow found out about your image upload problem and sent information to OTRS to have the image permissions fixed! You worked only on this article for over two years. We have a category for this kind of activity, and it is called WP:DUCK. Please spare us the baloney. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Appears to be covered by a feature in Kansai Time Out (a former mainstream magazine in Japan), and also is discussed in the book Japanland: A Year in Search of Wa. Multiple reliable sources (as in more than one) satisfies the GNG. Barely. EnPassant (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Split votes with heavy analysis performed on both sides. If anyone strongly feels like I should reverse this, I will, but looks to me as if there's a lot that needs to be debated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Redditaddict, I don't see a split, as KevinJardine is obviously the article subject-- that could be confirmed via OTRS. Wihtout his !vote it was 3 deletes one keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I strongly believe in the integrity of wikipedia and my own contributions to it. This accusation is categorically untrue. I am not the subject of this article. Again ThatMontrealIP's accusation is nothing more than a hunch. I'm sure ThatMontreal is a very good editor and I welcome constructive critiques but please stop implying that intuitions are facts.KevinJardine (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ThatMontrealIP (and the various IPs they used before finally creating an account) has an extensive history of AfD well-poisoning by accusing those who disagree with them of direct COI, or being spammers, or in your case, even the subject himself "or his mom". ThatMontrealIP needs to start recognizing WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:Civility not a week from now, not tomorrow, but now. EnPassant (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to satisfy the multiple independent reliable sources requirement - and they are spread over a period of 20 years, so sustained as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The sourcing appears solid enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I found the arguments of KevinJardine persuasive despite the likely COI. Curiocurio (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Exhibition in Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Art covers WP:ARTIST as well as other sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mr. Cooley's identity as User:Aciam888 has been verified: OTRS ticket#2017082510002164. This obviously doesn't rule out some other COI with KevinJardine. I will note, for whatever it is worth, that Aciam888 in an IRC help chat (control of the account verified by a requested edit) denies a connection: The only contact I have had from him was when he contatced me through my website asking for permission to use some of my images for an article he wanted to write, i sent my standard press kit and a few weeks later he messaged me that I would have to upload the images to wiki. This does not weigh in on his notability but given the suspicions raised in this case is posted as as background. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, all of the images in the current article were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by Aciam888 (or, in other words, Adam Cooley), in February 2017, six months before the OTRS ticket.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 18 Novemeber 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, promo, no sigcov. Szzuk (talrg k) 13:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - Kansai Timeout is the only thing that's an independent RS making more than a glancing reference here, but by one article by itself is not enough to show significant coverage. The Japanland book mentions his name exactly twice but purely as a friend of the author (i.e., it's not telling you that he's notable for anything or covering him per se) - it doesn't even mention that he's an artist (just says he used to do mime). Everything else is either not independent (i.e., the websites of the galleries showing the exhibits), not an RS, or not giving any more than a glancing reference. And yeah, I also think this may be self-promo. FOARP (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Travelstop[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Brand new startup. References mix of seed money funding announcements, churnalism, and parent company links. scope_creep (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, recently came through afc, plenty of refs none of which satisfy ncorp, its an advert for a tech startup, given the failure rate of tech startups we should delete and if it survives and comes back with better refs we can include it then. Szzuk (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Dew Schools[edit]

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

Unsourced for ten years. No sources or evidence of notability found. Mccapra (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, google is reporting it permanently closed, no refs in the article, i checked news and books, nothing there. Szzuk (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Crowley Baldwin[edit]

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

Non notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Single ref points to listal where Schneider has written his own biography. Film career is negligible, and perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

scope_creep (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

College of Cambridge[edit]

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

A 'for profit' college, not sure if it even operates anymore. Not accredited in the UK Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Abelmoschus Esculentus 12:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like a ten year old hoax, or vandalism, or good faith mistake. Their website is dead and I'm not convinced they ever existed. Szzuk (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Szzuk's analysis. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthony Sabuneti[edit]

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

PROD'd and dePROD'd earlier today.

Original PROD reasoning: Searched Google, GBooks, GNews, AllAfrica.com, and found nothing about this sculptor except profiles on commercial art sales sites. The ref given in the article is a good example of the kind of unreliable sources I found - it's a group that sells sculptures so it has a direct commercial interest in the subject and is therefore not independent. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. (This article is also a somewhat apparent paraphrase of the source, but not quite enough that I was comfortable G12ing it).

De-PROD'd after the addition of three sources. I am of the opinion that they don't indicate that the subject meets NARTIST at all. The two sources from the Herald (via AllAfrica.com) are simply mentions of his name in the context of other things. The one from news day spends all of two sentences mentioning the subject. It's not enough to keep an article.

Merely exhibiting, even in one notable museum, doesn't meet point 4 of NARTIST; the exhibit itself has to be significant. Otherwise the works have to be permanently in the collection of several notable galleries or museums. ♠PMC(talk) 10:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I added the references and removed the PROD. I have concerns about finding information on individual sculptors from Zimbabwe. The permanent collection of the National Gallery of Zimbabwe is not searchable online, as the national galleries of many countries are. International exhibitions are often reported in the media of the countries visited as simply 'Shona Art', with far more of the article expended on the organisers of the trip than the artists. The artists' names may be spelled in different ways, making searching difficult. Zimbabwe itself has been dangerous to visit for many years, media has not been independent, and it is not a place which outsiders are likely to visit to write about the artists. So it is hard to see how the significant coverage of prominent sculptors (or other professionals) is going to be found. If the articles that do mention them state that certain artists are notable, and have inspired others, or the artists have been exhibited internationally, that is evidence that they are notable. It may be worth digging in the permanent collection indexes of major galleries outside Zimbabwe, to see what Zimbabwean sculpture they have and whether they have recorded the artists' names. I don't know whether there have been previous discussions on this or similar topics, but I think that these artists deserve more than a PROD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
it is hard to see how the significant coverage of prominent sculptors (or other professionals) is going to be found - I rest my case. ♠PMC(talk) 10:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


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

Hello. I do not see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The subject's notability appears at best very local with a painting displayed "above the bar" at a Gig Harbor restaurant and an award won at the Lake Oswego Festival of the Arts. There is no WP:RS centered on the subject in the article and I have not been able to find any elsewhere. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone from Ithaca, NY made this page made this page and I found out about it. I have worked with non-profits all over Oregon and Washington State and also in Ithaca, New York donating my city alphabet art images art to help raise tens of thousands to worthy causes. Call the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, the Salem Art Association in Salem, Oregon, Hospicare in Ithaca, Family Promise in Spokane, etc. Also my art is in public collections- Lake Oswego, OR.... Should I somehow add this myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.213.32 (talkcontribs)
Note: above comment apparently left by article subject. See earlier badly formatted version of page by IP editor. 14:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Article and search turns up only local coverage. Many article sources are not IRS. Clear GNG fail. I'm not sure how the article subject showed up so quickly to the discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hannah Aldworth[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Daiyusha (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hannah Aldworth is a rare example of a (non-aristocratic) woman with a position of authority for whom we have records who worked at the Foundling Hospital. We also have records through her letters and her bequest to the FH that she was a philanthropist and worked to continue its existence as a institution pioneering social welfare. Georgeeliotismybae (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agreed. I can see that some may think that every similar woman of her time will, by extension, become notable. What is unusual here is that the records remain and the trust and the local church consider her as notable. The woman who posed for the Mona Lisa was probably not notable .... but she has an article. Victuallers (talk) 12:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Victuallers and Georgeeliotismybae. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to List of Guinean films. Per all the others AfDs of List of Guinean films noms of XXXX year by now (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Guinean films of 1992[edit]

List of Guinean films of 1992 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Needs to be redirected to List of Guinean films, like all of the tiny non-notable stubs this editor has created. Softlavender (talk) 09:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per nom Spiderone 13:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are three short lists of Guinean films by year - one for films in 1992, one for films released in 2007 and one for films released in 2009. These could be merged with the article List of Guinean films, but this article has films by alphabetical order not by year in which they were released. However, the general article List of Guinean films could be amended so that it has films by year. The separate article on lists of Guinean films by year are too short to have much merit, but if the List of Guinean films article is amended, it will be easier to merge all the information conveyed by these short articles with this more general article. Vorbee (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom and Spiderone. Ajf773 (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Strange Woman (Book of Proverbs)[edit]

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

This is an essay, not a wikipedia article. It should be either deleted or userfied. Jtrainor (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already used in the article. The style of the article can be amended but the subject is definitely notable, passing WP:GNG regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All of those are primary sources and thus invalid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • + They are all secondary sources Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator has not understood WP:PSTS. In this context, Bible verses would be primary sources, but the citations are all commentaries. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. While this article does have some non-primary sources, it does read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. The text is somewhat confused, stating, "According to Proverbs 6, being a strange woman can mean that you are your neighbor’s wife." It would seem difficult to be one's own neighbor or one's own neighbor's wife. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Draftify. Yes, it's notable, and yes, the sources are reliable, but this is an agenda driven essay. Fixing it is not going to be a simple matter of going through WP:WTW. The whole structure of the article is arranged to lead up to the final section "The Strange Woman Reclaimed" to promote the feminist position on the subject. Now I'm not saying that the feminist position on women and the bible is wrong, far from it, but it is not the mission of Wikipedia to promote anybody's position. If it were not for the fact that it has usable sourcing, I would be at WP:TNT on this one. SpinningSpark 10:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Draftify per Spinningspark. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect I have to agree with the nominator here. It seems to be editorialized without facts. How do we know if this woman isn’t just a character for this Wise Woman-Loose Woman dichotomy? Where are biographical facts about her like that of a Rahab or Mary Magdalene?Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete or draftify I gather that "Strange Woman" is a notable topic in discussion/commentary on the Book of Proverbs. If there is to be a Wikipedia article about it, it should follow WP:NPOV, and cover "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This doesn't (I don't think). It does have some references, to commentaries, which is fine (I cleaned the references up a bit so I could see how many there actually were), but a lot of assertions are unreferenced. It has other issues too, which others have commented on, and to which I would add that it seems to assume a lot ("the Strange Woman ... has been used to act as the antithetical character to Woman Wisdom" - who, or what, is Woman Wisdom? Is it the same as Lady Wisdom, mentioned later? And the Strange Woman "does not want possessions from you, but wants a man’s life" - I think that means she wants to kill a man, but I first read it as meaning she wants to live a man's life (which would fit with the later comment on "venturing into a male-dominated public domain".) Also, how do you "reap negative consequences on the male’s and female’s perspectives to a woman’s sense of self"?) I know that AfD is not about the quality of the article, but I am probably more confused after reading this than before. So, delete, draftify or even WP:TNT. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Good Christian Fun[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Fails at general notability guidelines. Hitro talk 12:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lameka Fox[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL Notability has not been established here and I have not found enough reliable sources to establish notability at this time. Another editor feels that appearing in a notable magazine is notability but I’ve always been told otherwise. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

    • Its enough to defeat a speedy deletion A7 Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Featured in editorials and front covers of notable magazines would suggest WP:GNG should be passed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In that case Draft:Chase Carter should be approved. But looking at it for what it is, I still believe there isn’t enough significant coverage out there, at this time, for Miss Fox. As this article stands, it relies on a single source, Elle, and since when is that acceptable around here? That’s ridiculous. (And no offense but Harper’s Bazaar Arabia and Vietnam are a bit far fetched for notability) Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Elle is a reliable source for models and non-English national magazines also count as significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • But by itself it’s absolutely not enough for a whole article. What is going on here. This goal post moving is troubling. Get the sources!Trillfendi (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m not going to copy and paste all the contents of that Elle piece because it’s propbably copyrighted, but you can not in good faith (or common sense) justify questions like: Diet coke or normal coke? Define yourself as a Disney character. And Ultimate snack?  as notability. You just can’t! Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG, which is not surprising given that her path to a contract was unusual and that she was one of the subjects of the documentary Baring It All: Inside New York Fashion Week, which aired on ABC Family (now Freeform). Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. Added two more sources to article. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It’s not as unusual as it was when it happened to her (I can name many models discovered on Instagram) but thank you for trying to improve it. Finally someone is actually bringing sources.Trillfendi (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Pity it wasn't you before nominating Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Atlantic306 Even greater pity that my house doesn’t get Freeform and all I could find was one reliable source. Sacre bleu. 😿 (This still isn’t enough for significant coverage though) Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
      • With the documentary that is four reliable sources which is enough Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep has coverage in reliable sources including being one of the models featured in a national television documentary Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Jat Mehar Singh Dahiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. A sole mention of an event commemorating him at Dainik Bhaskar and another trivial mention over an unreliable POV-ppushing op-ed at India Times. WBGconverse 07:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Search Inside Yourself Leadership Institute[edit]

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

A non notable leadership organisation advertising its book and course. Szzuk (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 20:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, subject has notability independent of Chade-Meng Tan, as evidenced here, here (see here for Europeans), and here (Europeans here). I have no personal relationship with the subject. I have noticed there are many articles about Meng, and I can understand the concern for preventing advertising going widespread, but I think deletion of this particular article is not warranted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Those sources are the type I was referring to in my !vote. They are essentially passing mentions, not in-depth coverage. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I beg to disagree. They are not just passing mention; there are many paragraphs about the institute's philosophy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, in hopes to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Designer baby[edit]

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

This is page about something theoretical -- "a human embryo which has been genetically modified -- which treats it as an entirely real thing. It is hopeless from the foundations up. I took what was useful here and merged it into Assisted reproductive technology in this series of diffs, along with content from Germinal choice technology, Reprogenetics, and New eugenics, all of which covered this same science fiction territory from different angles. The page was restored in this diff, with its interesting edit note. In any case, this page and topic should not stand alone in WP, and certainly not in its current form. The topic is covered solidly in the merged-to location in the ART page. If the content there is expanded with well-sourced content it can be split out at some point. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears you did a great job of merging this into the other article. WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The mitochondria topic is covered at Mitochondrial replacement therapy which has nothing to do with designing babies. As I mentioned the sci fi stuff ("proposing applications...for enchancement") is covered in the merge target. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the article states: "A designer baby is a human embryo which has been genetically modified, usually following guidelines set by the parent or scientist, to produce desirable traits." This is precisely what "mitochondrial replacement" (actually nuclear replacement in an egg containing healthy mitochondria) does. StN (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is clearly a notable subject from the many reference provided in the article. It is also separate from Assisted reproductive technology since this relates to technology to assisting achieving pregnancy, and not in genetic modification of the baby per se. All of the other titles simply redirect to Assisted reproductive technology. That this is often talked about in terms of future applications doesn't matter - what matters is that it has received "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It is incompetently covered here as though it were real and in addition there are bad sources and no sources (essay writing/OR) for significant stretches; the content is sourced well and tightly written at the target page. There is no need for this page. Finally ART is ART and the same techniques would be used for this (if it ever starts happening) as are used and researched there. This too would be "assisted reproduction".Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Page quality issues aren't a deletion issue. Whether it is real or not doesn't matter - what matters is if it has received significant coverage, and it very obviously has (1 2 3) ART is a technique for assisting achieving pregnancy so it is clearly not the appropriate place for discussing the subject of genetically engineered babies (including babies potentially having genetic modifications having nothing to do with genetic diseases) in general. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The topic is covered much better elsewhere. Yes ART is currently, actually used to help people who can't conceive; the concept of "designer babies" is discussed where it belongs there as some possible future application of current and under-research techniques, which is the appropriate context for it. Context matters in an encyclopedia. The theoretical ethical matters (which are all that the popular media refs you brought are good for) are discussed in the other page. I won't reply to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Refusing to engage in debate isn't conducive to an AfD, which is about achieving consensus through discussion. It is not clear, at all, why the subject of designer babies (which, as you say, is in large part a potential future phenomenon, one widely discussed and given significant coverage) is best covered within a narrow article about a single current technique for assisting childbirth. Furthermore what you are really asking for here is a merge/redirect - so why is this being handled via AfD and not via the talk page? Finally, the subject of moving the content appears to have been discussed on the article talk page and closed with no consensus in 2009, so why did you simply merge the page without discussing it first on the talk page to see if it was possible to achieve a new consensus for moving? FOARP (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Debate is fine but this is clutter. You are not making valid arguments nor dealing with the reality of this trashy page and you have completely misrepresented the target page. Deletion debate is not about making invalid claims and I won't use my time "countering" claims not based in reality. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you are now responding, I hope you won't mind if I respond in turn. The subject of the target page is described in the header: "Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the technology used to achieve pregnancy in procedures such as fertility medication, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy" (my emphasis). It is clear from this that ART is a technology (a specific technology) used to achieve pregnancy. The topic of Designer Babies is completely different - it is, as you have said, in large part a future phenomenon, not necessarily linked to any specific technology. Editing ART to cover the topic of designer babies does not make sense as they are separate topics - designer babies are created not just to facilitate pregnancy but for other reasons. The moral concerns around designer babies are not related to facilitating pregnancy, but instead theoretically possible future event such as the selection of e.g., hair-colour or skin-colour. Mergin makes no sense in that circumstance.
BTW - Refusing to even engage with the arguments against deletion is not conducive to the conduct of an AfD, because AfD is about reaching consensus and that can only be achieved through discussion. Especially where an article has existed for a long time and has already passed through a deletion discussion there will always be arguments against deletion that should be addressed by the proposer. Your proposed grounds for deletion include things that are not relevant to an AfD (i.e., whether designer babies are purely theoretical or not, whether or not they are a future phenomenon, whether or not the editor who restored the page after you wiped it did so correctly), these things don't matter for AfD because, per WP:RUBBISH, AfD is not for clean-up, page-quality, or other surmountable problems. The only place where I see you having a point is that there may be duplication, but if there is duplication it is hard to see how it can be duplication with ART since ART is a very different topic based on a simple comparison of the opening paragraphs of each topic. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I had to write a paper on this topic and I severely doubt I am the last one who will have to. This article helped briefly sum up what exactly "designer babies" are in a non-biased format. The other article contained information that was unrelated to my topic, and so I found it very confusing and finding the information I needed was hard. Please do not delete this, as it was very helpful to me and I'm sure that it will be helpful to others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talkcontribs) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The useful content is at the redirect. My goodness what an odd keep rationale. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree that this may be just a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL argument, but the real question here is whether you were right to copy that material over to Assisted reproductive technology and whether it really belongs there. I don't think it does, since ART is a specific current technology used for assisting pregnancy, which is very different to the subject of design babies, which are in large part a future phenomenon that doesn't necessarily involve the technology discussed in ART and may be done for purposes other than assisting pregnancy. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Deep Inside (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This disambiguation page seems unnecessary, as the main article is the only entry in the list that even has a Wikipedia article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep: the other entries are perfectly good dab page entries. Each would be a reasonable redirect if it was a unique use of the title. PamD 09:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep cannot understand why Erpert thinks the given reason is a valid rationale for deleting a dab page In ictu oculi (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ABS Loan Level Initiative[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and none exists in the article. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge into European DataWarehouse. The ABS Loan Level Initiative was just a working group of the European Central Bank. There might be half-a-dozen ECB working groups of similar stature each year. This one was successful and founded the European DataWarehouse, which seems to have been its goal from the start. So the material from the ABS Loan Level Initiative should just be the historical intro to the DataWarehouse. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Acer N50[edit]

Acer N50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I found nothing that shows notability. The only link in the article is the product page. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Acer N series which needs series work done on it to explain the N Series generation computers. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that merging an article into a non-referenced article is a good idea, one that also shows no notability. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Acer N series; earlier nom, unreferenced comment now obsolete. As a further comment this should likely have been a WP:BUNDLE with WP:Articles for deletion/Acer N311 and WP:Articles for deletion/Acer N series ... there's forks of discussion and inconsistent allocation to lists of deletion discussions between these deletion discussions ... are there any more? ... a bit of a mess.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • There are only three articles nominated for deletion. I wasn't aware of the other two articles at the time of the first nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Jenny Woo[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced to reliable sources. Of the eight footnotes here, four are Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in unreliable blogs, two more are pieces of her own writing about herself or other things on unreliable blogs, and a seventh is a YouTube video. There's only one reference here that constitutes acceptable support for notability, but one valid reference is not enough to carry a person over the finish line all by itself. As always, the rule is not that as long as the article says notable-sounding stuff the referencing can be just any random garbage you can find in the blogosphere or video-sharing sites: the notability test is not what the article says, but how well the things it says can or can't be referenced to reliable source coverage in real media, and none of the references here are cutting it at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There's also an album review in the Shields Gazette ([3]), but it's paywalled. Unless someone can find more, I don't there's enough to keep. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

James Skinner (CANZUK International)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of the founder of an organization. As always, the rule is not that everybody who serves as executive director of a notable organization automatically gets his own standalone biography article just because he exists, but the references here are not properly demonstrating him as independently notable in his own right. Of the 17 footnotes here, one is merely a redundant repetition of one of the others, so there are 16 distinct sources -- but five of them are brief glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite, not substantive coverage about him; four are Q&A interviews in which he's the speaker, not the subject; three are pieces where he's the bylined author of content about other things; two are the organization's own self-published website; and one is coverage of the concept his group takes on as its mandate which completely fails to even mention his name at all. None of these are sources which establish or support that Skinner is notable enough to have a biographical article as a separate topic from his group. There is one source that is more than trivially about him (#3, "Some 70,000 sign petition to end immigration controls between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and U.K.") -- but one good reference is not enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the only GNG-worthy source in play. This is simply not sourced anywhere near well enough, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment At the very least, as I've written on the article's talk page, even if the article isn't deleted, most of its current content should be. The present article isn't serving primarily as an article about James Skinner the person but as a vehicle for disseminating James Skinner's views about everything. Largoplazo (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of reliable sources demonstrating the notability of James Skinner per se. FOARP (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to CANZUK International which this article is really about. There is minimalnegligible BLP content. CANZUK International is notable but notabiltiy is not inherited. Have one paragraph about the founder in the CANZUK International article. Aoziwe (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Kaihsu (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Meghan Collison[edit]

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

WP:NMODEL Article is poorly sourced to verify claims made in it so I tried to look for some. In my before, I couldn’t find any significant coverage. Or at least not enough for an article. I found only one interview in Interview of all places. Trillfendi (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as subject meets WP:GNG with international RS coverage over many years. Some examples: Ash, Amanda (19 July 2013). "Local models make Italian Vogue; Coveted covers for Dorian Reeves, Meghan Collison". Edmonton Journal. p. G.3.Traill-Nash, Glynis (16 December 2007). "Collison right on Cue for campaign style". The Sun-Herald. p. 26.Akhtar, Amina (2008). "Everybody's Favorite Face". New York (Spring Supplement). pp. 148, 150–151.Fernández Abad, Ana; Rinciari, Francesca (14 February 2015). "Meghan Collison: "Comprendo la nostalgia por las décadas pasadas. No puedo culpar a los diseñadores por mirar atrás"". El Pais (in Spanish). Bakazaka (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Midsummer High Weekend[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT --woodensuperman 15:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge into Pink Floyd as there's only trivial coverge, but since notability doesn't apply to article content, the Google Books source suffices to this being covered somewhere in some form.—Mythdon (talkcontribs) 16:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Voice computing[edit]

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

Created by an editor with a clear WP:COI; appears to be a WP:CFORK of Speech recognition. The only references that use this term appear to be by the page creator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This nomination is way off. The claim that this is a content fork of speech recognition does not stand up. Voice computing is much broader than that – the "other end" of voice computing is speech synthesis (sadly, not currently linked from the article) which cannot by any stretch be included in speech recognition. Also not standing up is the claim that this is a neoligism invented by the author. A simple gbooks WP:BEFORE search would have shown this. Here's a usage of the term way back in 1987. Unarguably notable subject: Talk to me : how voice computing will transform the way we live, work, and think is a book not written by Schwoebel and gscholar shows plenty of scholarly papers using the term. SpinningSpark 11:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a valid topic, however there seems to be overlapping of information between the two articles and other separate articles. There is a good premise to Voice computing however I think it needs an overhaul. I think the article could work and could be kept if sorted out. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree there probably needs a bit of an overhaul to this article. I wrote the bulk of this yesterday. In regards to the conflict - yes, I did write a textbook in voice computing; however, I've tried to write the article in a neutral view. It would be good to do some more research on the definition of the term, as it's often used in many different ways by the media and can be confused with conversational computing. It's partly why I wanted to start a Wikipedia article, as I think we can all collaborate on a definition that we all agree on :-). Nonetheless, if the article is not removed, happy to spend a week or so editing it and review it with the team here to make it suitable and sufficiently non-overlapping with other articles. Jim Schwoebel (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think this needs to be deleted. Some of the terminology definitions (A voice computer is assembled hardware and software to process voice inputs.) appear to have no references or usage whatsoever. None of the conferences listed refer to voice recognition. The whole article is original research. And I don't dispute that speech recognition is a notable topic, nor do I claim that voice computing is a hapax legomenon of Schwoebel. Some of the sources use it to refer to Voice command devices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Keep. Reread WP:COI please. It only says that an external academic role can trigger a COI. It absolutely does not say that academics are not welcome to contribute in their domain of expertise. Welcome Jim, thank you for contributing to WP, and don't let this misguided deletion proposal discourage you. -- Oisguad (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I re-read it. Adding In August 2018, Jim Schwoebel released a book (Introduction to Voice Computing in Python) with a GitHub repository. with references to his own LinkedIn and Amazon.com pages is very clearly a COI violation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Deleting one sentence will fix that. No need to delete the whole article. SpinningSpark 22:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Zahran tribe[edit]

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

This is a recreation of this version of the previously deleted article. It's not a CSD G4, because the two most problematic sections were removed before it was AFDed last time; but as far as I can see it's, therefore, a worse article than the one that was AFDed last time. The useful content was merged to Azd; no purpose is served by resurrecting it, especially since it is still essentially unsourced. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete So many of these Arabian 'tribe' or 'family' articles are empty POV vehicles, wild assertions and most/all unsourced. Oh, and GNG. *sigh* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • comment there are enough sources for this article! and I think you are wrong about that Arab tribe articles are not sourced.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep there are enough sources about this tribe and its not just a branch of Azd it has gave a lot of branches like Banu Daws tribe. here are just some references to this tribe(note I can provide lots of Arabic sources and non-Arabic sources) [4],

[5],[6],[7],[8].--SharabSalam (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • comment The issue, then, is that these sources need to be integrated into the article and the information they contain included and the unsourced assertions in the article removed. There's no point putting sources here - they belong in the article itself! As it stands I'd still support deleting the article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alexandermcnabb: you are right. these sources should be in the article I was willing to add them and the other sources I got but I wasnt able to because I didnt have much time. please note that this is a pre-Islamic tribe it has many branches like Ghamd Banu Hajr; one of its branches is Banu Daws tribe which Abu Hurairah(a friend of prophet Muhammed) came from.[9] ––SharabSalam (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case the best option would be to move it to Draft space until it is actually ready for mainspace, and to go via the normal Articles for Creation process to ensure it is suitable. That would render this deletion discussion moot.
NB that while an edit summary said "I will be exetremly improving the article in the next few days and I will be adding many sources", nothing had actually been done for some days until the AFD kicked off a flurry of activity. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

note that I didn't create this article in the first place and I think it should not have been deleted instead it should have been moved to Draft space. I saw in this page history that there were attempts to delete this article especially from the user @Zahran80: (I guess he created his account for that purpose). I actually saw the previous deletion debate which involved him and other editors (who I think weren't familiar with Arab tribes). I was a bit busy (and still until now) after I recreated this article and I didnt get much time for adding sources although I think it's a good thing that I am involved in a new deletion debate--SharabSalam (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep - enough sources exist to meet GNG; article needs improving not deleting Spiderone 22:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Musicoin[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Currently, 6 of the references are releases/blog posts from Musicoin themselves. The other sources is an article from Blockchain News; cryptocurrency news sites are not particularly reliable. Overall, no reliable independent sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't find a single RS mention of this coin. I can find some passing mentions in minor academic sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sankara Bhagavadpada[edit]

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

Provided sources are not reliable, I was unable to find anything more reliable online. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - most, if not all, of the sources seem to be published by Sankara himself; therefore not reliable or independent Spiderone 09:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Not all the resources are self published, please explain where you have doubt.NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
[10], while hosted on a university website, does not appear to have ever actually been professionally published
This article is completely independent reliable resource published on an university website and authored by Dr. Vasudha Narayanan. I think this is the best citation for the article. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
[11] is partially written by the subject
The book is completely written by author 'Robert Chamberlain March'. This is not a self-published resource. NANExcella (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It literally says "by Sri Sankara Bhagavadpapa" at the beginning of the chapter that this link goes to. signed, Rosguill talk 14:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
[12] is on Scribd, not exactly a reliable source
Being on scribd, doen't mean that 'it is not a reliable resource'. You must judge the article by reading and its author 'Altair Meier H'. The article is reliable and independent. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
[13] is a database entry, which is not in-depth, and also appears to be written by the subject (it's in first person).
Absolutely not written by the subject the text is written by parliamentofreligions.org
[14] appears to be a faith-healing website, hardly a reliable source (and arguably not independent either)
Definitely an independent & reliable resource written by 'Makarand Paranjape'. NANExcella (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
[15] is a non-independent bio on an astrology website.
Agreed it is a biography article but published by hinduworldastrology.net
[16] deserves no comment
Agreed, this is not a good resource.
[17] is another database entry
OK
[18] appears to be a blog of unclear reliability and editorial practices, affiliated with an institute that does not to appear to be notable in its own right. Nevertheless, it is possibly the best source attached to this article.
Yes, it is one of the best resources in the article. 'religion.info' is definitely a good and notable website. And the article is reliable independent of the subject written by RAMESH AVADHANI.
[19] is another faith-healing website
This is an article which is published on an independent website 'healingacademy.org' and it shows the connection between 'Prof. V. K. Choudhry' and the 'Sankara Bhagavadpada'. It is a reliable independent resource.
[20] is not in-depth or reliable
Agreed, it is not in-depth resource but it is a reliable and independent from the subject.
[21] is another database
OK, it is again a biography but published on a reliable website.
[22] is a book by the subject
Completely Agreed with you. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book. NANExcella (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
[23] is another book by the subject
My same comment as above. This is a book written by the subject but you must check this resource where it used in the article. It is clearly seeing under the Bibliography section and it is a proof that subject wrote this book.
This leaves "AKHTAR, SHAMEEM (7 May 1997). "The Kalki Craze with Shankara Bhagvadpada". Outlook: 18.", an article which returned one result when I searched for its name on the internet...the result wasa wikipedia link-checker.
Definitely a reliable independent resource published on a notable news website 'Outlook'. Yes, it is also published on website.
All in all, I see no evidence that any of these sources are reliable or independent. signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
If you check independently and in depth you may find many reliable independent citations. And what would you say about two tv interviews one is conducted by 'Aleka Vial' and other is taken by 'Marcos Whoortman'? NANExcella (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I just check references used in the article, Not all the citations are self published. Reference could be improve instead of deleting the article. The subject passes the notability.JPL549 (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - content is highly promotional. Deb (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
My dear friend Deb, Can you please explain which part of the article you feel promotional? And what is the promotional object? NANExcella (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - The subject is completely notable and having enough reliable and independent resources such as msuweb.montclair.edu, parliamentofreligions.org, religion.info, Outlook India, Interview with Marcos Whoortman in 2013 and a science debate with Dan Barker.NANExcella (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Kazu Makino[edit]

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

Not independently notable from the band. No solo career and the only source that is not directly about the band is an WP:INTERVIEW where she mostly talks about the band. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to redirect this to Blonde Redhead? Qualitist (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Qualitist: Not a problem the group is clearly notable and this and other band members' names are valid searchs. However there have been a number of editors to the article and rather than just withdrawing and redirecting I would prefer to leave the discussion up and running for a bit (7 days normally) to give other editors a chance to discuss. Alss it was changed to a redirect once already which was reverted so for that reason I prefer to leave the discussion open to gain consensus. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I happened upon this page just now from a search for confirmation on the story behind the song Equus, which are documented events pertaining to Kazu's life and not the band. Lilhinx (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not a repository of everything that might interest everone. That said that information could be included in an article on the album or the group's page. Notability has to be proven for an article to remain and not just that the information contained inside is interesting. Dom from Paris (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Proficiency Paradox Theory[edit]

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

This is WP:OR; I find no references that discuss a "proficiency paradox" regarding teacher's evaluation ratings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, its an essay. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Mizna Waqas[edit]

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

ACTORBIO states person should "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." to qualify for a standalone WP entry.

Subject does not has had major roles in significant TV series therefore fails to meet ACTORBIO. In the previous AfD, the subject was credited for having played a major role in Peek-A-Boo Shahwaiz - the page itself has been removed because lack of WP:N Saqib (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep a disrusptive renomination just 2 months after a three week no consensus that had plenty of participation, followed by removing two of her roles from the article which can easily be primary sourced just before this nonination. Passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in national television series as confirmed in reliable sources such as Dawn Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No disrusptive renomination. You're violating BLP by adding poorly sourced information and citing unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Serato[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM which is lacking in significance, plus it does not meet the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - In-depth coverage in DJ Magazine, New Zealand Herald, Billboard, and others; discussed in several trade published books; more than passes WP:GNG. Isingness (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Clust[edit]

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

Fails notability - just published, no citations, self-added: obvious WP:COI. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binarization of consensus partition matrices. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for trying to save Wikipedia from biased articles or articles with no sufficient reliable sources.

However, although peer-reviewed publication just published in Genome Biology but the method and a pre-print publication have been around for more than a year with a user-base (e.g. number of users of the github version and the size of publicity on social media such as Twitter). The article is written from a neutral point of view. If any WP:COI signs of bias appear in the article, please point them out to be edited by whoever has expertise in gene expression clustering in general or in using this particular algorithm in particular. If still in doubt, you can always keep a warning sign at the top of the article inviting experts and expert users to edit as long as Wikipedia editors think the article is not 100% written from a neutral point of view. I cannot see how this article warrants complete deletion. Basel1988 (talk) 15:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: Basel1988 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Binarization of consensus partition matrices[edit]

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

fails notability check, WP:SELFCITE. See also: sister article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust on the new python implementation. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to keep wikipedia free of spam and biased self-promotions. However Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clust is not a new python implementation but a new method despite a link between them. I assume (hope) assumptions are done on articles after investigating references for fair judgement. Basel1988 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Acer N series[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this PDA line. SL93 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was significantly expanded after being nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Acer N311[edit]

Acer N311 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

No significant coverage for this PDA exists. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn per nominator (Rathfelder). (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Nuevo Tiempo[edit]

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

Unreferenced and lacking in useful content Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think this should be deleted without first checking what non-English sources (Spanish and Portuguese) may exist for it. (But, I myself lack the requisite language skills to do that.) SJK (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Moi aussi.Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This station is a very important Seventh-day Adventist station operated in Brazil that produces programs in Spanish and shouldn't be deleted. I've have added many references to this article, but sadly can't speak Spanish. Catfurball (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as broadcasts widely in latin America and so should be notable regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Happy to withdraw the nomination now there are references.Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Socialbakers[edit]

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

There is no indication of multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing this company in significant detail and is thus not-notable per WP:NCORP. Even if it is notable (which again I see no indication from looking for sources that it is) this page should be TNT'ed given it's borderline G11 status. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article should be definitely thoroughly rewritten using secondary sources, and shortened as well. However my opinion is that the subject is still notable enough to be on Wikipedia. - Darwinek (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not debating its borderline-G11 status and its over-reliance on primary sources, but I'm seeing enough significant references to convince me that it is a notable company. Beyond the references to the company itself, ABC News and the Wall Street Journal are publishing articles that appear to be solely based on results from Socialbakers analytics. CThomas3 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep The company has over 3K mentions on Google Books. --Gprscrippers (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Lost Barkscrolls[edit]

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

The book isn't covered by secondary sources and thus may not meet notability guidelines. Also there are no references used in the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, there appear to be quite a few books in this series that don't have any refs, it could be a redirect if no refs are found. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Szzuk, I didn't want to mass report them all. But feel free to open up another AFD debate for the other books. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony Thacker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No significant coverage found for this book author. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Age of Empires III: Wars of Liberty mod[edit]

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

An impressive mod with an established community, but the topic is a clear WP:GNG failure. In my BEFORE search, I found no sources that would meet WP:RS and WP:VER; indeed, all I could find were WP:PRIMARY sources, forums, facebook pages, etc. The best source I could find was an article [24] (in German) that briefly sums up the mod but does not cover it in detail, as is required by notability criteria. In short, the topic is admirable but not suitable for an encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move back to draft. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Story (social media)[edit]

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

This is an almost identical copy of Draft:Story, which was declined by User:AngusWOOF (and later received a more favorable review from User:Darylgolden, but not accepted). In it's current state, it's little more than a WP:DICTDEF. My suggestion is that this should be deleted as a duplicate, and Draft:Story continued to be developed and go through a normal review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn. At this point, it's been moved back to draft space. I'm going to remove the AfD template from Draft:Story (social media), since that's in the wrong namespace. If somebody wants to nominate Draft:Story (social media) for deletion, they can do so on WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A story is a collection of ephemeral auto-playing vertical videos" :: Erh?? Why must the videos be vertical? There are very many stories on social media which are text and/or images and not videos. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I boldly Moved back to Draft The creator ignored the AFC review process and tried to create the article regardless. As stated before, this can be redirected to a Social media section in Story (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard, requesting histmerge of Draft:Story to this one. Thanks AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vera James[edit]

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

No claim of significance per WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 03:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that this article had been PRODed, and started trying to find and add more references that provide evidence that she was famous in her time (WP:NTEMP), intending to remove the PROD after that. I have added references as I find them, and will prune to the most useful (in case anyone thinks WP:CITEKILL). Now it has been AfDed, I hope it has enough to meet WP:GNG, but will continue to work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep nice sourcing, RebeccaGreen. I found her obituary and an article about her from 1975 which I added. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Atomic swap[edit]

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

Cryptocurrency topic with zero sources at present. There's a lot of debate about sources in the talk page, and some adding and removing of sources in recent history. But overall: this page was created in January and still lacks reliable sources. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Claire Oberman[edit]

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

No claim of notability per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I've sourced her roles. She has major roles in several films. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Jaxon Rose Moore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Subject is seven years old so WP:TOOSOON probably applies. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete: For TOOSOON and lack of valid citations.David notMD (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Barbari dialect[edit]

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

"Barbari", or "Berbari", is the name of an ethnic group, presumably belonging to (or descended from) the Aimaq people. However, there doesn't appear to be any language or dialect with this name: the article's only source states that the Barbari speak Dari dialects. We can't rule out that they might have a distinctive dialect, but there don't appear to be any sources about that in the usual places. – Uanfala (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Uanfala:. What is the problem with the source already in the article? It's not available in full view so I can't read what it says, but snippet says there is a hit for the the exact term in the text. SpinningSpark 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The exact term is used only as a demonym. As far as I could see, the only information about the Barbari's language in this source is that they speak Dari dialects. – Uanfala (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

History of Israeli nationality[edit]

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

I hereby nominate this page for deletion. My arguments is that most of the content already exists on other pages; the history parts are well-covered by Zionism, Aliyah and History of Israel and the parts discussing citizenship, immigration laws and Jewish nationality by Israeli nationality law, Law of Return and Who is a Jew?. I think the page was created in response to History of Palestinian nationality, but in contrast to Palestinian and Jewish nationality, the existence of an Israeli nationality is a controversial topic. Jewish and Arab peace activists in Israel have been trying to create one,[26] in order to unite the people, an effort that has been rejected by the establishment that sees it as a threat to the Jewishness of the state. The article is unsalvageable as it discusses the history of something that arguably doesn't exist... It also looks to me like work on the article has stagnated and editors have previously suggested merges and cleanups. ImTheIP (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ImTheIP (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman al-Said[edit]

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

The Vanity/promotional biography (possible Hoax) which claims to be of an Omani royal , but the sources are blogs, promo sites and forums. Has WP:REFBOMBS of fake sources and WP:SPS. No source to prove why this person is notable. Can't find either. An IP had raised concerns on the talk page about the authenticity of this article. Also, Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITEDDBigXray 00:50, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • KEEP This is clearly not a genuine request for deletion as these so called blogs are ISSN registered international newspapers and official government documentation. This user cites restricted comments and edits by a banned IP user as their sole reason. The most ridiculous case of trolling I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameera Patel (talkcontribs) 01:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Ameera Patel (talkcontribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of LewisChu (talkcontribs). Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 08:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DBigXray 03:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not sure if this person is notable. I was able to find this source which seems credible (but one is not enough) Alsahawat Times. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Willthacheerleader18 Thanks for your kind comment. the link you gave above says Alsahawat Times is owned by the subject Shamsaldin Qais Sulayman. So that site is not only dodgy but WP:SPS as well. --DBigXray 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete per above statement along with the fact that after a more intense search I can find no credible secondary or independent coverage of this supposedly royal person. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The above Site mygov.nl is not a reliable or official site, although it tries hard to appear one. per http://www.whois.net/ , mygov.nl is registered in denmark and appears to me as a self published promotional site. --DBigXray 05:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

JonTron[edit]

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

I am aware the previous discussions over this page's deletion.

However, it is looking increasingly likely that JonTron is not notable even with the loosest interpretation of wikipedia's guidelines. He has not made any videos in nearly a year, has had no appearances in the news. The only reason it looks like his approval was ever accepted was his short lived controversy. This combined with multiple discussions on the JonTron talk page makes me think this is the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Personauncommitted (talkcontribs) 13:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as per my points above. Short lived fame and questionable notability do not mean a wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Personauncommitted (talkcontribs) 13:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

November 18[edit]

File:Molecularium1.jpg[edit]

File:Molecularium1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vitamindk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Old file, but text only says "Image appears on http://www.nanotoon.com but is no copyright is specified. Used here for educational purposes only for the Molecularium page.". I think this should change to a non-free image Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.jpg[edit]

File:Ruth Brown Snyder mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

http://www.deathhousebarber.com/photo_gallery/Sing_Sing.htm says "All Rights Reserved" Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. The "all rights reserved" cannot be construed to cover this photo, in which the website owner owns no copyright: it is a near-certainty that the website owner did not take the mugshot at Sing Sing prison or acquire any rights from the New York Department of Corrections. The use here, of a historic mugshot image, comports with Wikipedia guidelines as set out in WP:MUG. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep According to the article the photo was taken for her transfer to Sing Sing in 1927 (after 1923). But this would make it a work of US government employee, as his duty; then it goes under USGOV license. This instance would be opposite of en:Licence laundering, and c:Licence laundering. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Although I agree with your "keep" (as noted above; the copyright claim to the website clearly does not cover the pre-existing photo to which the web site author holds no copyright), this is not under USGOV. The mug shot is a work of the New York state government, not the United States government, and therefore the § 105 exception to copyright does not apply. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government: State, territorial and local governments. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ralph Lauren clothing[edit]

File:Ralph Lauren Vest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bi-on-ic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
File:Ralph Lauren Jacket.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bi-on-ic (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free images used in the Art Deco article. Together, the images fail WP:NFCC#3a as we do not need two examples of Ralph Lauren clothing. The images also fail WP:NFCC#1 as the article contains free images of art deco inspired clothing. It fails WP:NFCC#8 as there isn't significant sourced commentay about these images or the clothing depicted. Whpq (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Firstly, there is no free images of art deco inspired clothing in modern fashion these two are examples of art deco clothes in today's fashion industry. secondly, we do need two examples of Ralph Lauren clothing because one is art deco tailoring and one an art deco patterned outfit. There is a difference. Bi-on-ic (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete both images, as they are not needed in the Art Deco article, and per Whpq, the images fail WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Coldcreation (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tailoring or patterned outfits are not discussed in the article so there is no way these could meet WP:NFCC#8. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:XTC Go 2.jpg[edit]

File:XTC Go 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jiy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Non-free file may actually be free. This album cover, which consists only of typeface, does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the US or UK. Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-free. The actual text on the cover is certainly non-free. It's long and original. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Non-free. An image of copyrightable text is copyrightable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove from XTC per WP:NFCC#8 – The article only contains a basic factual statement about the cover in the caption, not any critical commentary about the cover. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg[edit]

File:Pink Floyd - all members.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SilkTork (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Since two of the band members are deceased, it's no longer possible to obtain a photo of all five of these men together in one place. However we do have compatibly licensed photos of each individual person, so in my opinion the image fails WP:NFCC #1. Please see Talk:Pink Floyd#Get back the old photo for discussion that's already taken place about this image. File:Pink Floyd 68.jpg (a photo from the same photo shoot) was deleted in December 2009 as F7: Invalid fair-use rationale. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep: there exists no free image of the band that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose (it's from the only photo-shoot of all five members). It satisfies all WP:NFCCP criteria. Coldcreation (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are plenty of free images of Pink Floyd. It is not necessary that a photo include everyone who was ever in the band. If that is desired, a montage can be used. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Coldcreation who said There is no free equivalent photo of the original Pink Floyd lineup, due to the death of two original members. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - impossible to find a free image with all the members. Would be like having an image of the Beatles with no John Lennon. So historical that it seems that there's only one image of this nature ever produced.--Moxy (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has come up for discussion previously. This meets WP:NFCC #1. " no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". The photo shoot from which is came is documented as being the only one in which all members of the band are present, and it marks an historic turning point in the band's history. Its historic and encyclopaedic value is about as high as you can get. It can't be created today as not all band members are alive, and those that are wouldn't be willing to get together for a photo. While it is possible to have individual photos, and even to put these together to show the individual members in a montage, that is not at all the same as having an actual at the moment in time image of all the band members together at a significant point in their history. By all means replace the image in the lead with montage, if that is felt appropriate, but "Pink Floyd - all members.jpg" has a powerful and irreplaceable encyclopedic value that it is our function and duty to use, and meets legal requirements, so should be used within the article to mark that turning point in the band. It is secondary that it can also serve as a lead image, but it is handy that it does. But please don't mistake its position in the article as being the totality of its value. The image meets United States legal doctrine of fair use, and Wikipedia's own non-free content criteria. SilkTork (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep per SilkTort. It easily passes WP:NFCI#8; in a slightly tongue-in-cheek metaphor, it would be equivalent to using a Ford Fiesta to illustrate the Ford Escort article, because "it's all Ford"... ——SerialNumber54129 15:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Even more historical/encyclopedic significance is in the fact that this is the one of the few photographs in existence where all members were present. That alone should merit the photo's inclusion somewhere in the body --- if it wasn't already perfect as the infobox picture. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg[edit]

File:Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Carliertwo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC#3, 8. The fact that the same artwork was used with a different color background is more than adequately conveyed by text alone, and using two variants of the same image violates the minimal usage principle/ The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NFCC #3 and #8. The cover is not discussed in the article and differences to the other cover could be described in prose. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) 20:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It's inacurrate, the cover is discussed in the article. « The artwork representing white lines on a blue monochrome, was first used on the back sleeve of the 1978 "Hong Kong Garden" single; it had been created for the band's first ever b-side "Voices" ». @ JJMC89 --- Carliertwo (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
(It looks black to me, so I originally thought that referred to the other cover.) Ok, so it is discussed, but is it not the subject of sourced critical commentary. That is just a basic (unsourced) description of the cover. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
A source has since been added in the article. This second answer is even more puzzling as the user wrote about the image that it looked black to them whereas it is a deep blue monochrome with white linha sinusoida. So in the end, there isn't WP:NFCC #3 = as one item can not convey equivalent significant information in this case and #8 either = its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding @ JJMC89Carliertwo (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep -- This backcover of a 1978 single is used to show where the design of this 2016 cd compilation comes from. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone. The image is placed in the article next to the infobox to show the primary 1978 visual image associated with the artwork, and to help the user quickly identify the genesis of the 2016 artwork. Carliertwo (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • procedural effect: The complainant Hullaballoo Wolfowitz failed to notice the uploader Carliertwo on their talkpage with {subst:fdw|1=Siouxsie and the Banshees voices.jpg} which is inadmissible and a sign of contempt. The complainant is currently in a edit war on several Siouxsie related articles and wants to keep their procedure unnoticed by the users of those articles. Carliertwo (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Samit Hota Official.jpg[edit]

File:Samit Hota Official.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SamitHotaIn (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Out of scope personal image Magog the Ogre (tc) 19:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete out of scope - uploader is using the wiki as a social platform. Cabayi (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as out of scope. I also nominated the same image on Commons for deletion for the same reason. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Sedition, 1986.jpg[edit]

File:Sedition, 1986.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Davess (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Per Talk:Sedition (UK band)#Untitled, the file's uploader is also the photo's subject, so he's unlikely to also be the photographer and copyright holder. Would need more info if otherwise. czar 22:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

November 18[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Teaching in the United States[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles and one sub-cat in this category, and all of them could be re-categorized (or dumped into Category:Education in the United States for now). power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


Redirects[edit]

November 18[edit]

Template:Category elections by year[edit]

Highly misleading redirect to Template:Category U.S. State elections by year. The template was created at this name on 5 March 2013‎ , but was moved[28] the following day to its present stable title.
There are about 6,000 uses of the old title, which will need to be changed by a bot. But this trivial bot job will stop the ambiguous title being mistakenly used on categories for elections other than those in US states. If there is consensus to do this, a request at WP:BOTREQ will have it done easily. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Processing (language)[edit]

The use of "(language)" for "(programming language)" is generally avoided as it can be confusing, but here it's even more confusing as the redirect can be taken to refer to any of the two topics known as "Language processing". – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pig (language)[edit]

Here "language" means "programming language"; the target, however, is not a language but a software platfrom (its language apparently called Pig Latin). And there's also the proper Pig Latin, which one could imagine as a possible target of this redirect. So there are two potential targets, the redirect isn't a correct name in either case, and it's quite awkward in both, so deletion seems best per WP:XY. Noting that retargeting to Pig (disambiguation) isn't an option as at least one of the two articles doesn't belong there.) – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

No objection from me. --a3nm (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Gorani (Language)[edit]

Not useful: miscapitalisations are fine, but not when they appear inside the disambiguator (note that Gorani (language) already exists). The second redirect uses an implausible disambiguator that doesn't disambiguate at all. – Uanfala (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:The Powerpuff Girls Lineup 11/23/2016[edit]

I don't see the purpose to this draft? Could someone fill me in on its significance? Paper Luigi TC 09:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Harry p[edit]

Too vague. The series is not referred to as "Harry p", nor is anything else. Xezbeth (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete google shows no primary topic for this search term, the results are font, a Harry Potter fan fiction archive, a post on a tripadvisor messageboard by someone signing as "Harry P.", Harry P. Guy (a ragtime composer), Harry P. O'Neill (US representative from Pennsylvania), Harry P. Cain (US Senator from Washington), Harry P. Hatry (academic with no wikipedia article), Harry P. Koulos (lawyer with no article), and Harry P. Leu Gardens (house and gardens in Orlando donated by Harry P. Leu and his wife). Not suitable in the slightest for a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Alistair Taylor(Surgeon)[edit]

Missing a space, miscapitalised, and uses the "surgeon" disambiguator despite being a fictional character. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Harvard Library Bulletin[edit]

There is no sourced mention of a bulletin in the Harvard Library article. Catrìona (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The hole (football)[edit]

I would suggest that, at a minimum, these should point to the same place. Editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 120#Hole (association football) suggested deleting Hole (association football), since it's not obvious where the redirect should point. Cnilep (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shane Warwick[edit]

Non existent character, There's a "Shane O Hara" but not a Shane Warwick, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Well apparently according to this there is a character named Shane Warwick ..... the character appeared in one episode .... so the chances of him ever being remembered for 1 minor role in one episode out of 200 is slim to none, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete since it's rightly not mentioned at the target article. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dale Baxter[edit]

Non existent character, There is a "Dale Jackson" but no Dale Baxter, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Damon Reid[edit]

Non-existent character/person - Hector Reid was a character but this person wasn't, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fleur Grudgen[edit]

"Fleur Budgen" is a character but this person isn't, I'm assuming it's a play on "grudge" .... either way character's never been referred to as such, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ahmad Masood[edit]

Not mentioned in the main article nor at List_of_Waterloo_Road_characters, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

November 18[edit]

Template:Infobox Hall of Fame[edit]

Only sixteen transclusions. Redundant to {{Infobox museum}} (or possibly, in some cases, {{Infobox organisation}}). The museum infobox is already used for some halls of fame. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox technology festival[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox technology festival with Template:Infobox recurring event.
Technology festivals are recurring events. None of the parameters in the technology festival infobox are unique to technology festivals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bus accident[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox bus accident with Template:Infobox rail accident as, say {{Infobox public transit accident}}.

Largely overlapping templates. The majority of differing parameters relate to maps which both templates should be able to use.

And what if a bus hits a train? ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Obviously we need {{Infobox grade crossing accident}} to cover that use case. Support, seems like an obvious merge candidate. "Public transit" may confuse people when it comes to freight-only incidents (it's only a name, but never mind). Mackensen (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Highly sensitive[edit]

Propose merging Template:Highly sensitive with Template:Controversial.
One might at first think these templates serve different purposes, because, after all, depending on the meaning, a controversial subject is not necessarily the same as a sensitive subject. However, Template:Highly sensitive urges neutrality, just like Template:Controversial, demonstrating that these templates are actually warning about the same thing. Even if Template:Highly sensitive were used in the other sense, to warn editors to be appreciative of others' emotions, it would probably be considered an impermissible WP:Content disclaimer. These templates should be merged, and then existing uses of Template:Highly sensitive should be evaluated to ensure it is used on controversial subjects as opposed to just sensitive ones. Bsherr (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Test[edit]

Obsolete, replaced with {{subst:uw-test1}}. Also the same for {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}} and {{subst:test4}}, which were replaced with {{subst:uw-test2}}, {{subst:uw-test3}} and {{subst:uw-test4}}. –User456541 14:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep per all previous TfDs. Nothing has changed - it's a different template and not obsolete. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. What's changed to justify a fresh nomination? @User456541: did you review the previous discussions prior to nominating? Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mackensen: I wanted to Redirect to {{subst:uw-test1}}, but Twinkle won't let me do so, so I chosen Delete as deletion type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User456541 (talkcontribs) 16:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Unless the talk page is missing a link to a more recent discussion, the last discussion was closed a year and a half ago as no consensus. Which of the WP:Speedy keep criteria does this then fall into? --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter, because the nominator never even read the talk page, apparently. Redirecting a set of templates repeatedly not deleted at TfD would have been an incredibly disruptive and inappropriate action. Thankfully TWINKLE recognized that apparently, even if the nominator didn't. Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete (redirect to appropriate UW template). Is there any more substantive argument than the template version of WP:ILIKEIT that can be offered to explain why we need these redundant user warning templates? With everything else on Wikipedia, we resolve our differences and make one version that meets consensus. Indeed, it is fundamentally inconsistent with WP:Consensus for separate versions to exist. If there is something lacking in the UW templates, can we not address it directly by changing the UW template, if there is consensus to do so? As for why now, the biggest reason to me is the poor and corrupted state of the documentation for these templates. Because these templates are substituted, we cannot know whether it's two or two hundred people using them, but it's a big red flag that apparently no one cares enough about them to properly maintain their documentation. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bsherr: I think it's argument enough to say that there are those of us who prefer the older language and for various reasons find the new language inappropriate. It's convenient to have a standard templated warning to use instead of typing it out by hand each time. I find I don't need documentation to tell me how to type {{subst:test}}; if documentation is necessary to use the newer templates then it sounds like they're much too complex. I frankly don't understand why this is a perennial concern. Who's hurt by the existence of these templates? How is this nomination helping Wikipedia get better? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The need to resolve differences, achieve consensus and agree to a single version is mostly only relevant in the article namespace – and that's because we don't normally have two articles on the same topic. That's not really an issue in the template space: if there are two templates that do the same job in slighly different ways and there are groups of people who use each one, then that's fine: there's nothing wrong if there's more than one way to do something.
      These templates are substed, so we can't count transclusions, but we could at least search the user talk namespace for their exact text. It's difficult to see how many people are still using them (there are over 43,000 uses of the first one, most of them from quite a few years ago). But a quick browse came up with several uses from this year: by Bearian, TigerShark, Ixfd64 and [email protected] on a few user talk pages. The number of people who've used the template this year is obviously more than four, but it's unlikely to be more than 20. – Uanfala (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Voooltdj sandbox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently a test edit by new user. David Biddulph (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
  • Speedy-deleted under criterion G2 as an editing test outside userspace. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 13:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Northeastern Huskies football navbox[edit]

NAVBOX with just three links ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep; has four blue links including the title. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep Just 3 or 4 links is not a good reason to delete a navbox. navbox works well to me. Hhkohh (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep; 3-4 links is sufficient, and there's clear potential for expansion. Mackensen (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Quad City Steamwheelers roster[edit]

Team has been defunct since 2009. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:WakeUpPresenters[edit]

Unnecessary template for a short-lived, unremarkable breakfast news television program. Only 3 linked articles within, and their involvement with this program is far from the most notable role in any of their careers. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Tnc[edit]

Yet another redundant and un-needed template created by BrandonXLF. Basic copy of {{tlx}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. The argument that this template is redundant of Template:Tlx is wrong. BrandonXLF is right that it fills a gap in the template-linking templates. There is a clear good-faith basis for this template to have been created, so I don't understand Zackmann08's claim that BrandonXLF was blocked for creating this template, nor can I find any evidence that the creation of this template was the reason he was blocked. I actually think it's very unfair that it was even mentioned here at all, since it has nothing to do with the merits of this template. All that being said, I do think the template should be deleted. Even though it does fill that whole in the table of template-linking templates, the template is not being used as of now, and I question whether there will be any need. I've personally been skeptical of {{tlx}}, which I understand exists to make it easier to click single-character-named templates, and which I think is a dubious purpose, and which I see used far more often outside the purpose for which it was intended. --Bsherr (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Conduct discussion[edit]

The RFC/U process is defunct, so this template is useless.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep and deprecate template; let it be preserved for historical reasons. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Guinean films[edit]

Created by incompetent newbie to support a bunch of non-notable stubs, all of which end up at AfD and being redirected to List of Guinean films. Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, I remind you for my contribution in English is the culmination of a link that I followed to create the temple Guinean films, and all that is related. I urge you to help me create a redirection to French. I am a beginner to wikimedia English, I did not want to find myself here so improved the article if Wikipedia is a collaborative project instead of deleted. Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most links now redirect to one single article, making this template useless. Ajf773 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox sports draft[edit]

Propose merging the above templates all to use Template:Infobox sports draft.
Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox LDS Temple[edit]

Propose merging Template:Infobox LDS Temple with Template:Infobox religious building.
I don't see any reason for LDS temples to have their own custom box. Perhaps I'm missing something? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Please continue the discussion you started first. I'm pretty sure that this would result in unnecessary forking and duplication of data in multiple places. Please dig into how these LDS temple templates actually work and how content is reused in infoboxes, lists, and other places. I advised you last year at Template talk:Infobox LDS Temple to RTFM, and you never responded there. Why nominate the template for deletion instead of continuing the discussion that you started? – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pinging Trödel and Keizaal, who can probably explain it better than I can. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jonesey95: will be 100% honest with you, totally forgot about that conversation! In my defense, that was December of 2016... It seems like there may be a valid reason to keep this as a separate template. That being said, I think it is at least worth discussing. Thank you for pinging other parties. Obviously if there is a valid reason to keep it separate, than separate it shall remain! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Planetbox begin[edit]

Appears to me that this is redundant to {{Infobox planet}}. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Note that he following templates would also need to be deleted/merged into {{Infobox planet}}
{{Planetbox begin}}
{{Planetbox image}}
{{Planetbox star}}
{{Planetbox star detail}}
{{Planetbox separation}}
{{Planetbox orbit}}
{{Planetbox character}}
{{Planetbox discovery}}
{{Planetbox catalog}}
{{Planetbox reference}}
{{Planetbox end}}

Miscellany[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

18 November 2018[edit]