Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 28

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Creator was just recently warned to stop creating articles of non-notable songs a few days ago, and has since continued to create articles such as this despite several editors either AfDing them, or proposing a speedy deletion. A look at their talk page and recent contributions tells that this is a routine issue. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it has no standalone notability demonstrated within the article, and none was found by searching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NSINGLE/WP:NSONG in any way JC7V-constructive zone 00:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of any notability .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Morning Again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP, their reasoning is “WP:ROTM artist; no reliable sources present, current sources depict social media pages and interviews.” Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Morning Again per WP:MUSICBIO. No indication of independent notability, and I am not sure the band meets the notability guidelines, either. Teemu08 (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Morning Again; not independently notable & does not meet WP:MUSICBIO for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

does not meet GNG. Available sources focus mainly on his marriage, which is BLP1E. No indication that he meets any of the SNG that apply to people in the entertainment business. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for some sources to beef up the article.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, you removed the filmography...so we need to have a reference for every single film in their filmography in order to include it? Why is not the fact that the film in question has a wikilink to the screenwriter? This does not seem to be the practice for screenwriters or directors or actors. And look at this page 2001 in film with no references? So how does it work?Patapsco913 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• An AfD discussion is not the place to have a content discussion. It is also not the place to enquire as to how to evaluate a source against the standard at WP:RS. That would be the article talk page and Teahouse respectively. However, you should probably read WP:OSE. John from Idegon (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I have restored the film credits section and added sources to verify it. This subject has written many screenplays for many notable films, and as such, meets point #3 of WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw - thanks to Northamerica1000, and feel free to close. John from Idegon (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USS Politesse (SP-662) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article on a 30' long US Navy patrol boat that did nothing remarkable, was captained by no one remarkable, and to which nothing remarkable appears to have ever happened. No one died on board, the boat was not hit by any torpedoes, no peace treaties were signed on its deck. As near as I can tell, the only remarkable thing about it is that there is a Wikipedia article on it. I understand that there is a kind of knee-jerk response that says, "If it was a US Navy vessel, it warrants a Wikipedia article." But the logic of that has reached the level of absurdity if we are going to host articles on every piece of wood or metal that the US Navy ever made float. A loose noose (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the boat was small and may not have a particularly exciting career is not in itself a reason for deletion - there is some coverage in reliable sources (i.e. DANFS here) although whether there is enough to justify a standalone article is a different question.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at that, Nigel, and it looks like it is an archival catalogue entry— yes, it does say some basic things about the boat, but the database it comes from looks like covers every boat in the US Navy, without discrimination. We have pretty clear rules with regards to the kind of coverage that a living person has to have before qualifying for a Wikipedia article, it's hard of fathom (get it?) that the rules for a patrol boat with a non-history like this one's should be so much more generous! A loose noose (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy (which doesn't currently list this vessel [and probably needs to be split up, but that's beside the point]). I see no claim of notability (and DANFS is arguably not independent of the subject, so I doubt that'd count toward the GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, added to USN patrol vessel list. The fundamental dilemma is we should either have articles for just about every vessel of this sort (WWI ID and SP designations), or limit the vast majority of them to a list entry. There are several hundred of these vessels. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the paucity of sources on these vessels means they will permanently be stubs, then I think we have an answer on that question (and whether they pass GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly seems consistent with existing Wikipedia policy. We might also want to consider that no other existing Wikipedia article other than a few list articles even mentions the craft. Maybe this is partly because there is simply nothing to be said about it. A loose noose (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think the prospect of the vessel remaining a stub for a long time is a good enough reason to delete or redirect. Many, many ship related articles have been stubs for months or even years before being expanded.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what if there doesn't appear to be anything with which to expand it, nor any prospect of anything in the future? A redirect would leave the possibility of an article being created IF somehow something does come up someday, but right now no one seems to be able to find anything to show that this vessel is notable in a meaningful sense. A loose noose (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is of course true, but I'm fearful of any precedents that may be set if we delete or redirect an article simply because it is a stub.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I'm not advocating deleting the article because it's a stub. I'm saying it ought to be deleted/redirected because it will permanently be a stub, because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that we can use to develop anything more than the handful of lines from DANFS. Put another way, the article does not pass WP:GNG. There are plenty of stubs (and indeed currently non-existent articles) on notable topics that simply haven't been improved yet because no one has gotten around to them. That is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I've struck out my vote.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into list article per some views of Nigel Ish. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel ish. This stub will never be expanded and would be suited to have the relevant info from it in a list article. JC7V-constructive zone 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel Ish. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article with regret - it simply isn't notable. I see many others like this in the list which have articles and should be treated likewise. It's a shame as I've never seen a commissioned ship not be notable before and now we will have some as black ie no link/article and people will wonder why Lyndaship (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Undertaker#Other media. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article is unsourced and I cannot find anything to support notability. Was de-PRODed under inherited notability. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sadly I havn't been able to find any real in depth coverage.★Trekker (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The_Undertaker#Other_media if reliable sources can be found, otherwise Redirect. The target covers the basic info. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively per Killer Moff. Publication dates and creator names should be included at the target. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to above target with pub info from GCD. Looks like there was a Wizard magazine promo and then the ongoing series of 10. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Altar Boy Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Failed television pilot that went to air as a one-off special, but never got the range or depth of reliable source coverage needed to clear WP:NMEDIA on that basis. This has been flagged since 2008 as needing more sources, but it doesn't have any more sources -- on a ProQuest search, the only other "coverage" I can find is straight reprints of the one source that's already here, but one source isn't enough to make this permanently notable all by itself in the absence of any other substantive coverage. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject doesn't show enough significance for having such a stand alone page for itself. I would consider a merge if there is any such option. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above the Line (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Television "series" whose status is unverifiable. As always, the mere existence of an IMDb page is not an automatic wikinotability freebie in the absence of reliable source media coverage about the show -- but this cites none of the latter, and I can't find any anywhere else either. Basically, if a television "series" is so unsourceable that a decade later it's still "unclear when or on what network it aired", then we can't keep an article about it just because it has an IMDb page. And on top of that, apparently only one episode was ever actually made, which means this is far more likely to be a failed pilot that never got picked up by anybody at all than a television series that ever actually aired anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm going to call it for what it is; someone threw a pilot Global and CTV rejected on the internet to try to sell it...and didn't. Doubtful it made it to a cable channel, either, even as 'beaver hour' content for a network like G4 to throw on one night. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW as a pilot that was apparently filmed but never aired anywhere. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Significance was not even established and I see no hope for such in the future. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Defunct group, appears to fail WP:BAND, no real claim to notability. It may meet criteteria for a speedy under WP:A7 but since it is the fourth AfD, perhaps it merits a discussion. I would advocate salting the article if it is deleted. Ifnord (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree that there is no indication of WP:BAND notability. Not seeing any WP:RS on the group and none of their music has appeared on a WP:CHART. Teemu08 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also agree that it doesn't pass notability guidelines. Zortwort (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here passes any WP:NMUSIC criterion, and the sources aren't reliable ones for the purposes of getting them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Even if this article was noteworthy, Even if it had reliable sources, it is still one of the shortest stubs I've seen. If a subject can only generate an article this long, it probably doesn't warrant an article.Grapefruit17 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Technical textile. I am not sure why this has been relisted so often. It has been clear for some time that there is consensus not to keep this as an article, but that equally there was consensus to redirect it. Anyone who wishes to carry out the suggested merging is, of course, free to do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The term "Performance fabrics" was probably invented by the Marketing Dept at Gore-tex, as I recall. It actually has no defined meaning, as the main editor is finding out. This concern was highlighted by the reviewer at AfC a couple of years ago, and again by me quite recently.

None of the refs support the article, and I believe the subject unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• :Delete: The gallery of HUGE photos makes the article so, so much worse. Anything worth salvaging can be incorporated into Technical textiles, which has both Clothtech and Sporttech sections. David notMD (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep: The article is vastly (albeit contentiously) improved from what it was when this discussion started. Still overly wordy and repetitious. I cut some of the fluffy sentences. Needs more trimming, but there now is a core worthy of being an article. David notMD (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Technical textiles, or a new section created at that page. It would seem that most of the topic could be better covered under the more specific sections found there (sport or protective?). While I am trying to ignore the (ugh) formatting issues – on both pages even – and base my opinion on the content, I do not see any outcome other than delete, and it may be best to apply WP:TNT here and add any useful content to the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha3031 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking !vote, since to be honest, the other article has the same issues. I'm wondering if there's a better title for th page, but it isn't really something that would improve the page significantly.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Page is a mess now, but the subject matter, isn't as 'bad' as the 'world's-leading-experts on everything' are claiming it to be. While I'm also not totally against a WP:TNT for this one.Ciao.Themessengerofknowledge ^{write to me} 13:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC) 19:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC). sockpuppet. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The gallery of large photos, which seemed to be the major objection from !voters so far, has been deleted. Performance fabrics is a much better, much more informative, far better cited, much less choppy, much less brand-promotional article than Technical textiles, so I see no reason to redirect to it or merge the articles. I myself objected to Performance fabrics three years ago (which is why it is on my watch list), but it has come along nicely. This current article is well cited and informative. The worst that can be said of it in my opinion is that has been mainly written by a single editor [1], who is a bit of an SPA, but he did not create the article or its title, and there is no indication of brand-promotionalism. Softlavender (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Technical textiles. I fail to see how this article would be encyclopedic, it is full of marketing speak and trivia along "clothing is worn for comfort and protection" (doh). It does not tell you anything worth knowing about the subject matter (for example "Textile Auxiliaries" in Ullmann's,doi:10.1002/14356007.a26_227). --46.189.28.247 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This IP has only edited for 13 days and has already gotten 17 warnings for disruptive editng and a block. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • But, nevertheless, their observations in this case are accurate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they aren't, and the IP is just trolling, as usual. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes they are, but they've been blocked anyway. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge (after wielding a very large axe) to technical textiles.

Gore-Tex may have dreamt up the term 'performance fabrics', but it isn't unique to them. It is indeed poorly defined, but it is a term of art, which I've known since the 1980s. I remember a UK company called Courtaulds Performance Fabrics Ltd, formerly Fothergill and Harvey Ltd, which may now be the Performance Fabrics division of Courtaulds Aerospace Ltd or have been spun off as Fothergill Group. Narky Blert (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Term of art = Jargon = Nonsense!!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon = useful technical shorthand for those involved in a trade or business ≠ nonsense. Narky Blert (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked as a chemist in the viscose industry, I used routinely to measure things like soda, cell, ballfall, and k-value (actually, k₂-value, which used an S.S.54.2 filter pack; k₁, which used an S.G.1 pack, was long obsolete), but only measured gamma-value once or twice. Gamma-value was a rarity, but everyone in the factory, including the process workers, knew what the other terms meant. Nonsense, eh? Narky Blert (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does the use of Jargon in articles help inform our readership. Jargon should be explained, perhaps using reliable sources. Hang on, the term "Performance fabrics" shouldn't be covered in wikipedia using jargon, but reliable sources. Hang on, there aren't any to do that, as demonstrated in this article. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why 'performance fabrics', a term which our readers might come across in real life, should redirect to an article which explains what it means.

Sheesh, talk about WP:WIKILAWYERing! Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(I forgot to mention salt figure, which is or was a worldwide standard measurement in the viscose industry across several languages. I always asked more experienced analysts than I to measure it – the technique looked simple enough on paper, but was easy to get wrong if you didn't know what you were doing.) Narky Blert (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Last edits(deletes) by Roxy, the dog. barcus made the article incomplete ,Seems unfair and unjustifiable especially when he recommended the deletion of the subject article.Thanks Rajiv Sharma (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I nommed this, there have been 98 edits to the article. I have made 9 of them, you have made 19. Isn't that a little hypocritical? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. barcus Please do not be so desperate to delete the things testing procedures were added just 30 minutes before and you deleted.Allow me to add verified sources at-least.why so hurry? ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the editors who are watching these efficient deleting patterns.They will definitely come and save this page.I am hopeful and recording all discussions and your wrong doings.Expecting your reply on my recent edits .ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RAJIVVASUDEV: Articles can be improved while they're being discussed at AfD; if removing content helps improve the article, then so be it. Instead of asking other editors to wait for you to add verified sources, perhaps it would be better for you to wait until you have all the proper reliable sources ready to go before adding the content. Anytime you add unsourced content to an article, there's always a risk that another editor will remove it; so, the way to stop that from happening is to find the sources first, get them ready and then add the relevant content to the article. Finally, you'll have a better chance of convincing others to keep this article if you focus on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and keep your comments focused on the article content, instead of trying to get them to focus on what you consider to be "wrong doings" committed by other editors. AfD discussions can sometimes get a little heated, but it's best to try to keep cool and focus on the matter at hand and not try to personalize things as explained in WP:GD#General advice. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly (talk) Sir, I sincerely appreciate your advice and from now on I shall try my level best to maintain the things properly.I am not against removing the content but astonished the way things are happening,since I have seen other pages also,with another kind of remarks like Need improvement,need citation ,refs and so on.But here the things are getting deleted more promptly.See the logs.One more thing i am not very much familiar with all editing skills.I did not want to write the way i am doing but i was forced to do so.Please accept my apology .Thanks and regards Rajiv Sharma (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's an ill-defined industry buzzword and while there are fabrics which exist and which could be said to belong to this category, the term as a whole does not clearly define a set of fabrics. As a result we don't get decent RS discussing this topic and the article is a confection of original research and not encyclopedic. Some of the referenced material may be salvaged and moved to more specific articles. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Request continuous and instantaneous deletion of recent edits( Users are adding ) and intentional trimming of the contents and refs(Which were valid for two years) seems unjustifiable and discouraging .This is not the only article with un-encyclopedic name and with less sources, Article deserves a fair chance of improvement. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion one name change can save this article options from my side

1. Clothtech
2. Functional Textiles

Please see there are Bot suggested articles which need more serious attention since they are ignored with a long time. The contents of Performance fabrics are not that bad and they are presently happening and reshaping the distressed textile Industry. Kindly consider.

Thanks and regardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, Rajiv, have you changed your iVote? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is same what it was Keep,The article is more improved now .Appreciate your contributions.Thanks and RegardsRajiv Sharma (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you have just said you want to change the name. That is not Keeping the article. Please amend your vote. Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to Keep only. Article is completely changed when it was tagged ,please change your opinion also .Yes I am open to change the name if the judges and all are still dissatisfied with the revised version.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @David notMD: It might help avoid any possible confusion if you struckthrough your previous !vote and moved this up to the same spot. See item 6 under "When participating, please consider the following".-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. David notMD (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Technical textile and clean up the resuling article. I'm agnostic about the title of the merged article, it should of course comply with WP:COMMONNAME. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems like lot of wp:original research, Would also suggest to merge with Technical textile and also clearly describe who calls it and by whom , it rather depicts a loose marketing term and even the pictures or being used from other textile related article showing lack of anything new Shrikanthv (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after doing some research it seems the word " performance fabrics" eventhough a colloquial word does meet wiki:notability and there is enough content available to keep this as an article by itself Shrikanthv (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The title might better as "High-performance fabrics" or "textiles" -- see high-performance plastics, for a similar concept. Anyway, here's source which demonstrates the notability of the topic -- Engineering of High-Performance Textiles. Myself, I'm quite liking the non-iron shirts which I discovered recently. There doesn't seem to be an article about those yet so I'm going to make a start... Andrew D. (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that source does not support this article, as it is about textiles, not fabrics, a vast difference. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics. This is not a vast difference; it's closely related. The source covers this relationship, "Engineering of High-Performance Textiles discusses the fiber-to-fabric engineering of ... before presenting the engineering fabrics and architectures needed for ... Properties covered include moisture absorption, pilling resistant knitwear, fire retardant fabrics, camouflage fabrics, insect repellent fabrics, filtration, and many more. ..." Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Performance textiles are used to make performance fabrics." This is abject nonsense - what is the rest of the source like? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 10:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have refrained from removing much of the extant article for non reliable sourcing while this discussion is continuing. I am also curious as to who was the original contributor of this article, as the wikipedia software seems to think it was User:Themessengerofknowledge who created it, having issued a notification to them whenm I nominated this for deletion. I had believed that Rajiv Sharma originally wrote it, according to his user talk page. Do you guys have any explanation? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, fabrics and textiles are one and the same.You can find various resources that could help you with understanding that.One more thing, You should limit the use of the word nonsense, as it's highly condescending and, even downright degradingWP:WIKILAWYERing!. Also, this forum does not serve to satiate your personal "curiosities". As for the page creation mess-up, I am confused too.

ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, did you create the page, or the messenger? That's an easy question for you not to avoid.

Also anybody who thinks that Fabrics and Textiles are the same thing ought to take some sort of textile technology course, as it is nonsense to say that. good grief. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, the dog. There is no question of avoiding , History is there and software is also there.

@ Fabrics_ Everybody can understand that you do not own that course,For your information there is only one article which defines both i.e. Textiles and for fabrics the message is like Fabric" redirects here. For other uses, see Fabric (disambiguation) and Textile (disambiguation). on Wikipedia.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As there seems to be some confusion about the words, let's check the OED:

textile n. A woven fabric; any kind of cloth.

fabric n. A manufactured material; now only a ‘textile fabric’, a woven stuff.

So, they have come to mean much the same thing. The source Engineering of High-Performance Textiles is therefore quite valid and, as it clearly covers fabrics specifically, we're good. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Technical textiles. While most of the sources in the article are crappy buzzwordy marketing style articles, there are a few papers in there that discuss functional/technical fabric that could be useful in Technical textiles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• comment. I think it is incumbent on me to point out a few things now that the sockpuppetry is over. I was confused at first and thought that he was a student, parroting badly stuff from his textiles lectures, as what he writes appear to be lecture notes in between unconnected, unenglish babble. (WP:CIR applies to competence in language too.

As I write, the ivote is divided as follows - keep 4, merge to TT 4 and Delete 2. I have not changed my mind that the article should be deleted due to a lack of any meaning that can be assigned to the term "Performance fabric." Note that the term is used by Marketing departments rather than technical ones, and we all should know how they work. (They will say anything at all to sell their product, truth, honesty and particularly reality do not get in their way) The article is more or less in a similar state to it was when I nominated it - the stupid huge gallery of pics was added after in a strange attempt to improve the piece. I would be happy to start again without the distraction of the sockpuppet if that would help provide a clearer result. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lahore Cantonment. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHA Graveyard, Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Notability tagged article which does not appear to meet GNG. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG as per nom. Chetsford (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. There is lots of coverage of the cemetery, generally in connection with arguments about who is allowed to be buried there, as well as articles mentioning in passing that a person who died will be or was buried there. In general, editors should remember that currently operating cemeteries are likely to be well-documented. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Also, a search for "DHA Graveyard" is morelikely to give results than for "DHA Graveyard, Lahore". Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with the quality of sources being cited to establish the WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I. These only establish that it exists and it is a real place, which is different than whether it's notable. Chetsford (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, this appears to be a small cemetry (around 3.5 hectares, the largest in Lahore, by comparison, Miani Sahib Graveyard is 60 hectares), is reflected by the dearth of significant/indepth sources available, could still be a search term for readers so a couple of lines at Lahore Cantonment may be appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Lahore Cantonment in the interest of optimal information organization. Move the information with sources. Do not delete the graveyard's article history. gidonb (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lahore Cantonment per WP:NBUILD, since that is the area where this is located.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems consensus that suitable sources are in place and that NPOL is satisfied by the position (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsai Ling-yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Failed to meet notability criterion. It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 18:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See the much longer Chinese-language article at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%94%A1%E4%BB%A4%E6%80%A1 That article has 16 references, although some may not be from reliable sources. In addition, search for the name in CHinese characters here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have added many references. As a former Second Lady of Taiwan, Tsai Ling-yi has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, and therefore meets the general notability guideline. For more information, see Chinese article zh:蔡令怡 on Chinese Wikipedia. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets GNG per the references added by Neo-Jay to the article + those available on the Chinese Wiki. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A second lady is a notable topic already by itself. United States can have its second lady article. Why can't Taiwan? There is third party resources already, there is photo, there is the detailed DOB etc. Yes I know it may not be as complete as the United States' one. But if we keep deleting the less notable topics, those less notable will even be less noticeable in the foreseeable future, while the indisputably notable will just even keep growing, overshadowing the smaller or lesser well-known countries. Chongkian (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I still feel the current version is rather short but has improved a lot. --It's gonna be awesome!✎Talk♬ 08:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Length or lack thereof is not a good rationale for deletion. Deletion is usually the last resort for articles. In any case, a well-executed WP:BEFORE would have led to WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NPOL, as well as the reliable sources added by Neo-Jay. Vycl1994 (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WWNLive. I'll semi-protect it as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not appear to be notable. Should be a redirect to WWNLive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, restore redirect as a locked rd By behavior and dealing with them a few months back, this was the creation of an IP sock of New South Wales-based Martimc123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (they seemed to have found a new dynamic IP and provider, so a block would be fingers in a cheesecloth and null good edits from several other IP users). Thus this should be a G5 (I spent a few weeks trying to deal with their messing with wrestling TV templates before giving up), but they'll persist on trying to recreate this as its own article no matter what. Nate • (chatter) 19:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, @Primefac:, who G3'ed this in the past to see if that should indeed be the result. Nate • (chatter) 20:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and SALT - No stand alone notability. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American Balls (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Film lacks reviews from RS or other signs of notability per GNG and NFILM. Had been proposed for merger with another film by one of the actresses involved but that seems like a poor target and I do not see a better target for a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no indication of the multiple reviews (or indeed any other reliable coverage) needed to pass NFILM. In fact, it doesn't even show up on the more trustworthy existence sites like ImdB, If someone were creating something on the '06 version it could be merged there but even a redirect to, say, the actress would be odd and ill-advised. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I can't find anything either other than some places listing it for sale or mirrors of Wikipedia. It exists and can be purchased, but that's the extent of what's out there. I can't find any reviews or coverage in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Failure of WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources discuss the character. Killer Moff (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies. After links from templates are discounted, there are 9 articles that link to this character from the prose. This list includes a minimum of information, although it's lacking creator credit. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Argento. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the war in Donbass (July 2018–present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is a violation of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is essentially a collection of daily press briefings by the Ukranian and LNR/DNR sides (the reliability of either side being rather poor). The conflict is not covered by SECONDARY WP:RS at anything close to the the level of detail present in the article. This perhaps belongs in WikiSource or something similar - we are essentially hosting a collation of WP:PRIMARY accounts (the daily press releases). There are also NPOV issues in the presentation. In terms of policy rationale for deletion - this is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSTAT fail.Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is active warfare in Donbass, as a matter of fact. This is a well sourced WP:LIST. The criteria for inclusion are obvious. Many sources are secondary and qualify as RS. Some others (such as that one) are indeed primary and hardly reliable. They should be probably removed. I agree: these events should be summarized more briefly, but this is a matter of fixing content. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The RfC discussion is far from over, so hardly any "way to improve the article" could have been found (or not) yet. The timeline, as the proposer acknowledges, is based almost exclusively upon daily military reports from both sides involved in the conflict, therefore this is not a case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, since the narrative mirrors sources which provide concise information (weaponry, locations, number of ceasefire violations and casualties). Wikipedia policy is aimed to "statistics that lack context or explanation", as you can see at WP:DISCRIMINATE. Sources don`t need to be "independent"; see WP:BIASED, where it reads "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Counterbalance is the best way to achieve neutrality in some cases, it has been already discussed at the RfC.---Darius (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No comments to add.LongstreetJames (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Darius. Impru20^talk 21:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the sourcing is adequate.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – was my intention in the beginning (in 2014, or so (started in etwi, copying from here)), though, did not know at this time nothing about today (19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)), and, e.g., reading/comparing with Current events, shall we delete this and other similar and stick to, say, Big Bang, and start dealing with this unknown ‘thing’?
  Meanwhile, in the middle of Europe, people are killed, fates of millions are “bangled”, and, people are reading this series of chronology, no matter on which side of the "line" they are (killed, wounded, fighting, suffering, living), thus the multi-language sources.—Pietadè (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of any notability. Almost all refs are social media, blogs, vlogs or sales sites. No evidence of in depth coverage by reliable and independent sources. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; in addition to the sourcing issues the tone is blatantly promotional, bordering on G11 speedy deletion territory. Huon (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I concur with the nom and Huon. This is blatantly promotional to the point of needing nearly a complete rewrite, and I also do not believe this meets NMUSIC or GNG. Waggie (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Giorgia of Marin and Lesina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Google search for "Princess Giorgia of Marin and Lesina" results in 41 pages (Instagram, Pinterest, blogs), and search for "Georgia Marin" results in 75 pages of similar type.

Note that articles about this individual (and members of her family) have been deleted before and protected from recreation (see Giorgia Marin). ... discospinster _talk 16:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've blocked the page creator as a sock puppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Royalist Lady/Archive). ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable aristocrat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G5: created by a sock puppet in violation of a block. DrKay (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Compare also Marin Family and Umberto, Earl Marin, both protected against re-creation. Narky Blert (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Also, there is a possibility that the creator of the article(s) in question may have a connection to the subjects of the article. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Namenamenamenamename (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Title does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I found evidence of some coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Argento. BOZ (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add the sources Argento found to the article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NCOMIC from the sources found. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable band and while having released an album on a notable label, there's no indication it went anywhere or charted, no coverage I can find and no significant contributions to notable works. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: their first and third albums were nominated for Grammy Awards in the Best Rock Gospel Album category [2]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shockingly did not come up in my searches but i'm not sure how much a nomination on it's own really means for an article, particularly in the absence of...anything else? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean they pass criterion 8 of WP:BAND, although like you, I would like to see something more to be able to add to the prose. Christian rock isn't my area and I wouldn't really know where to look for more reliable sources - I'm hoping other editors with more expertise in this area can help. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. Much of their press was early in their career in the 1990s, and there's little of that available online. For example, I can't find good data on which Dove Awards they were nominated for back then. Here's a recent interview: [3]. - Foetusized (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to lean toward the deletionist side obviously so i'm not one to think of keeping stuff just on the basis of being nominated for many/any thing(s) when there is no other coverage. I did check newspapers (I have a newspapers.com subscription) and found nothing worthwhile there either. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I honestly doubt the this would've been AfD'd if the nom knew this was a two-time Grammy-nominated band. Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO and specifically Criterias 2 "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (one of their songs charted 29 on Billboard's Hot Christian Songs [4]- the nom's claim this band didn't chart was incorrect), 5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" which even the nom admits and 8 "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Easily found in-depth coverage spanning years.[5][6][7][8]--Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple Grammy nominations, 10 charting singles, and I've expanded the article using some of the sources found by Oakshade. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

When I came to this page from a request for page protection, it had been nominated for speedy as "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to." That is not exactly an accurate description of the article. However, as I investigated it I began to believe this is a hoax. The article was created in 2011. this version, soon after creation, lists two sources. The one from NarcoSphere is a dead link. The one from Dallas Morning News is still accessible, but does not mention a gang by the name of Siete Viejo. With this edit in 2012 MauricioMoniko22 removed the reference list and expanded the article, citing no sources. This is the only article MauricioMoniko22 has ever edited. Since then there's been a substantial amount of IP editing, much of which appears to be vandalism. My original inclination was to revert back to the version before MauricioMoniko22's 2012 edit, as sources were listed, but since the sources don't actually appear to verify the content I did some searching and outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors, I can find no indication this gang exists. I've left the article courtesy blanked, and I'll semi-protect it to prevent vandalism over the course of the AFD. I want other editors to help confirm my suspicions that this is a hoax. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as either an unsourced negative blp(G10), assuming they are real people, or as a hoax/vandalism(G3), assuming they are not, or as no assertion of significance(A7) assuming they are real and that was not a wholly unsourced negative blp. Not sure why it did not go as G10, but it's been here a while, so a few more days won't matter-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming none of the above are true, then delete as just not notable.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim I did not delete it as G10 because it was not wholly unsourced - back in 2011 and 2012 there were 2 sources cited. Also, it's not strictly a BLP, although it doesn't have to be to bring up BLP concerns. Now, when I tried to verify information in the article using the sources, it failed verification; but G10 was still inappropriate IMO. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. How can we make a decision if the article is blanked. That is an oxymoron.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ There's a button up top called "view history" which will let you see the article, including past versions. My deletion rational also includes links to relevant past versions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Shouldn't have been blanked (nowhere close to meeting WP:CBLANK). I don't know if it is a hoax. However, there are no sources (well - the blanked version has two links - that don't mention the name of this supposed organization, the article at creation cited sources don't seem to mention this supposed organization either) - so it fails WP:V. In my BEFORE for more sources - I was not really able to find any reliable non-wiki clone with info on this gang on-line (It does seem that Siete Viejo is a neighborhood, perhaps a ghetto of sorts, in Laredo, Texas). We typically require national level coverage for WP:NCRIME - so even if this exists, it doesn't come close to the required level of coverage for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @BabbaQ: You can look at the past versions in the page history-- they are all still there-- and should in case there is a salvageable version that has been missed. I will unblank the thing though as that was blanked automatically by Twinkle.. "Keep for now" is an oxymoron. Either the page meets inclusion criteria or it does not, and determining that is not affected by any one revision.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete My searches on "Siete Viejo" + gang not finding sources. I cannot find any indication that it is a notable gang.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Four Maintenance tags explaining the advertisement and close connection. This article is not fluent and is a blatant advertisement. No notability established. AmericanAir88 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A drive-by article created by one WP:COI account and then extended by two other WP:SPA accounts. Other editors removed some of the worst of the promotional content, but the article remains far substandard. It briefly explains what is project management, what is a dissertation, and assures that the student is provided with Office365 access, etc., but does nothing to demonstrate the notability of this particular course in this particular institution, which has so far obtained only a trivial number of students. (Elsewhere, we do have an article on the Brevet de technicien supérieur as a qualification.) Searches are finding nothing to indicate WP:GNG notability. AllyD (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not even an attempt to establish notability and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Per WP:NTOUR, an article on a tour requires evidence of "notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability." I can find no reliable sources to demonstrate any notability for this tour beyond the fact that it took place. Set list and schedule are largely fancruft. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable film director with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:DIRECTOR. He has directed 4 films of which only one is notable, and the rest of them are miles away from being anywhere close to notability per WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG. (Since no one wants to touch this I am hopping in). The movie director has only 1 movie with its own article. (that movie also has a questionable notability). His Bio has a Lack of WP:SIGCOV hence opting to delete. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Couldn't find any mention, trivia found on not-so reliable sources. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Law Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, and I cannot find WP:RS coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies GNG. There are many reliable sources in GBooks and GScholar. James500 (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: appears to be a significant student body. Some coverage here: From Elections to Democracy: Building Accountable Government .... The article is rather promotional, so if it closes as "Keep", I'd volunteer to remove the 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Guys, I agree the article is pretty bad but ELSA is a real thing. Actually it is a pretty big thing just have a look for instance here on their website: . For instance, as a former law student from The Netherlands and former ELSA-member I can confirm that in all or nearly all law faculties in the Netherlands there is a local ELSA branch, and that most European countries have a similar situation. This can be verified easily for instance through the websites of ELSA the Netherlands and ELSA Germany . To be honest, it is not very difficult to find out the reality and relevance of ELSA. It also sends delegations to all kinds of United Nations bodies . Hope this helps. Vunzmstr (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article on a commercial toy or game product has zero (0) sources. A search on JSTOR, newspapers.com, and Google News fails to find any reference to "Capes" within the context of a toy, game, or games. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of role-playing games by name. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if kept, this should be moved to Capes (role-playing game) and the dab page CAPES should move to this name. I don't see enough coverage but haven't look in enough depth to confidently !vote. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and for the same reason move the edit history if the page is redirected. BOZ (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no independent third party reliable sources in the article. The publisher is red-linked so merging is not an option. There is no indication this is a notable game, therefore it fails the notibility inclusion criterion stated on List of role-playing games by name. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 16:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've found this interview with the creator and a trivial mention in a book The Role-Playing Society: Essays on the Cultural Influence of RPGs. Notability guidelines are not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very minor product. Completely fails GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clpo13_(talk) 19:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unreferenced essay Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I get six GBook hits, and five of those accidental juxtapositions. Regular Ghits show that this is, at best, buzzphrase generator output and doesn't actually mean anything specific. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Content-free buzzword spillage. XOR'easter (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unremarkable software package by a non-notable creator and with no independent sources in Google or the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No claim of notability or coverage in secondary sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject is a actor. Fails WP:ACTOR. No significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Subject's role in "Insatiable" seems to qualify but not his roles in Realityhigh and Chance do not merit as significant roles. WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Provost currently fails WP:ENT. To meet the notability guidelines there, an actor must have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." While his role in Insatiable seems to qualify (as his character is mentioned in most of the episode summaries), his work in the other productions does not. The role in Realityhigh does not seem to be a starring role, as none of the sources I've checked mention it. (Our article is rather skimpy.) His role in Chance does not merit mention in the article, despite listing 10 main roles and 6 recurring roles. His role in The Case for Christ doesn't even merit mention on the film's official website. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and the WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Strong consensus that there is sufficient reliable sourcing (though specific sources may be so-so as regards reliability) and that the individual is notable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a lot of RS coverage of this person. I tried to look for some more RS coverage to beef up the article but the RS are scarce and the few RS that cover this person do so briefly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This isn't in-depth? wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It is. Thing is that I consider Newsweek a borderline RS, and if Newsweek is a RS (I do believe the RS noticeboard still considers it as a RS), it's still one of few to actually cover White at depth. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd definitely consider Newsweek and e.g. the New York Daily News reliable despite operating poorly in the recent times, simply because they de facto continue to accurately report the news. Reliability should be judged on the number of scandals, not on the number of fact-checkers they employ. wumbolo ^^^ 12:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "few" in-depth reliable sources discussing the subject are enough to pass GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The existing sources are sufficient. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. I was honestly quite surprised to find this nominated for deletion. Subject is definitely notable. Absolutely passes GNG.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This will make her pass the WP:GNG-guideline too. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG. Coverage is enough to class as notable. TheMasterGuru (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let me make this clear, I believe Blaire White only has significant coverage because she appeals to the lowest common denominator, so of course conservative and anti-alt-right sites jump to cover her. But, with that out of the way, I think there's definitely enough coverage to classify as notable. Ottoshade (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Very strong consensus that notability and sourcing has been satisfied, including removal of delete !votes (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability NANExcella (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not close to passing GNG or PROF.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Striking due to sources found below, however I would question whether the author is notable as opposed to the shortlisted book (which has been reviewed by several outlets, easily meeting NBOOK) being notable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is WP:TOOSOON for this novelist. News searches in Latin alphabet turn up a number of articles mentioning him as having been shortlisted for an Arabic literature prixe him for a prize, but no WP:SIGCOV in English language media. It appears that his novels are published only in Arabic, it is very unusual for a novelist not published in a European language to have a page on the English WP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing in our notability or sourcing requirements that sources be in English or in European languages. There's a tendency for that to happen anyway because those are the languages most of our editors know best, but that's a bug, not a feature; see Wikipedia:Systemic bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to suggest that there was, I was only specifying the breadth of my searches. I find only mentions, and not many of those.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think shortlisting for the International Prize for Arabic Fiction (an honor that comes with a $10K prize) is enough for WP:AUTHOR 4(c) and that his other published books, although seemingly not enough for notability themselves, save this from BIO1E. Note in searching that many sources spell his name "Walid Al-Shurafa". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all certain about that rationale. It's a lot of money, and they've been giving the prize for over a decade. Almost all of the authors are bluelinked, and almost all of the author pages are mere stubs, with a smidgen of PRIMARY sourcing. Do Arabic novelists lack fans? Is the committee deliberately choosing writers that no one reads? I really don't understand all of those pages just sitting there with an unsourced sentence or two.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably, considering the plentiful coverage I just linked below, most of these authors are well-known and widely-read by Arabic-speakers but rarely discussed in Latin-alphabet sources. FourViolas (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His name in Arabic is وليد الشرفا. In addition to the IPAF nomination, for a book that was widely (and favorably) reviewed in Arabic-language RS [9] [10][11] [12] [13][14][15] and earned him several interviews [16] [17], his work is discussed at length in this reliable source, a book of Arabic-language literary studies written by Ali Hassan Kharaja, a Ph. D. in Arabic Literature. I believe this constitutessignificant critical attention per AUTHOR 4(c).

I also found a few reviews of his academic books [18] [19], and a news snippet [20]. FourViolas (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been cited as an expert on Palestinian media by Vice and Ynetnews, although I'm not sure if this rises to the standard of WP:NACADEMIC #7. FourViolas (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep trusting Arabic-reading editors on book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein. James500 (talk) 04:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NAUTHOR per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sounds like this needs much cleanup, but clear consensus to keep as a valid topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Essay. Full of unreferenced and untrue assertions. There is a slightly better article,Patient administration system on the same topic. They should be merged. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you think Patient administration system and Hospital information system should be merged, then why didn't you nominate the two articles for a merger instead? 344917661X (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, numerous books, university courses on HISs, i won't bother listing examples like i usually do, instead heres Worlcat, and heres a gsearch for others to confirm. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not suggesting that the topic is not notable, but the articleis almost devoid of useful content. I think that Patient administration system is probably on the same topic, but the article is so poor I am not sure about that. I think Hospital information system] is a British name for much the same thing.Rathfelder (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the article needs to be improved. Hospital Information System is an important topic in Medical Informatics. There is a better article in German, but it contains German specifics. Maybe as a first step it should be reduced to a somewhat definition.Udo Altmann (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Isuspect that these systems are different in different countries - and probably change over time. A good article needs to reflect this. Maybe someone could help by pulling in content from the German article. And if we are going to merge the articles we need to decide what the improved article should be called. Rathfelder (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Rathfelder (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - subject is notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources, including multiple books on the subject. Nom appears to agree on notability, now. This article may need to be stubbed and reworked, or merged, but that is outside the scope of afd discussion, and should be addressed on article talk page.Dialectric (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Lack of notability is not the only reason for deleting an article.Rathfelder (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The topic is real and notable. Do a search for "hospital information system" on Google Scholar, get lots of results. The current article is poor, but the solution is not to delete it, the solution is to add some more better quality references (try Google Scholar and Google Books for starters). Also, with the suggestion of merging with a patient administration system–be aware that a HIS and a PAS are not the same thing, a PAS is just one component/module/part of a HIS. (A PAS stores patient contact details and bookings, but not other medical data such as lab results, doctor's notes, medical imaging, billing and insurance claims, staff rostering, etc – HIS implementations will include some or all of those other aspects in addition to just PAS functionality.) SJK (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 40k Google Scholar results for "Hospital information system", including [21] [22] [23]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody is suggestion that the topic is not notable. The problem is that the article is not encyclopaedic. Rathfelder (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a quick pass to remove material I believe to be un-sourceable. The sourcing is still extremely bad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:DINC. If the subject is notable, then poor sourcing is no reason to delete or merge the article. SJK (talk) 11:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 The End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A movie that fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has a full independent review in The Times of India here, will look for more later, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have found some more reviews: Dekh News, Telangana Today which is a newspaper, see Telangana Today, and livehindustan.com, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have huge doubts about reliability about these sources (except telangana today). The reviews seems to be paid reviews. In any case, they are reviews by websites that would cover most of the films released recently. None of the critics who gave review are "nationally known critics", they arent even known as critics. That was the first criteria. The film fails rest of the criteria as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to have plenty of sources. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: there are sources, but they are not WP:RS. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: The "plenty of sources" are two on the article. Three but IMDb was used as a reference (moved to "External links"). "Makers of 2016 The End release trailer of the comedy film" (International Business Times) was from Oct 6, 2016 and is dubious. This is a BLP related article so the usual; "The state of references on the article does not matter as long as there are sources out there" would be at odds with BLP policies and guidelines with only "Critic Review of 2016 The End" (Times Of India). I would think someone would dig out a HEY! instead of just posting them on the discussion considering the current poor BLP sourcing. If Telanganatoday.com, livehindustan.com (needs translating), and Dekh News (I could not bring up) are reliable sources (I am not familiar with any but the Times) then there are ample sources. The movie was a flop, with one review giving 2 1/2 stars and the rest either a bad review or 1 star out of five. The movie was a year over the production timeline so 2016 The End (2017) would seem more appropriate. If kept it would be interesting (if possible) to include the reasoning for the delayed production time in the article, so it doesn't seem like a missed prophesy (or missed doomsday) movie, but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as a film article rather than a BLP it passes the first criteria of WP:NFILM as a widely released film having full independent reviews by nationally known critics (meaning published in national newspapers) such as The Times of India and Telangana Today even if the other reviews are disregarded which is not established that they are definitely unreliable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Telangana Today is not a national newspaper. Its a state-wide newspaper. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I don't disagree that it passes WP:NFILM. I "assume" there are likely even more sources "out there" and the reason I haven't argued delete. I would point out that with 10 names listed like 22 times on the article (somewhat overkill on a "Stub-class" with triple repeated blue links) someone else will likely read this, and even if it survives this AFD, it may likely be resubmitted. BLP articles, or those related that mentions a living person, according to policies and guidelines, "must" be held to a higher standard. We generally don't just try to take one "rule" and forget the others. and it really doesn't matter if the material is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Anyone that has the right resources might want to consider that and possibly provide additional sourcing. At any rate: Have a nice day, Otr500 (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I could find were mostly tabloid type, or non-reliable at best (exluding times of India). Thats why i had to take it to AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: My opinion will not count "if" this is just a headcount. The rationale for a !vote is: One reference and a trailer release does not provide evidence of clear notability. We cannot override other policies and guidelines (especially BLP related) with "as a film article rather than a BLP" to squeeze in notability by exception. I could not find anything else substantial on the movie. Otr500 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are no BLP concerns with this film article and there are 2 reliable sources independent reviews and state-level press counts for WP:GNG especially the size of Indian states, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Amateur football club. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NCLUB/WP:NCORP. Only source in the article is a listing of all teams in the competition. » Shadowowl | talk 09:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. » Shadowowl | talk 09:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As noted in a previous AfD, amateur status has no bearing on football notability. Appears to meet WP:GNG: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] (I don't read Dutch, but there are more sources available than just the ones posted here) SportingFlyer talk 11:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1,2 and 6 are regional, source 3 and 4 are about clubs losing from this team. Source 5 might be usable. » Shadowowl | talk 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with regional sources. SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to be notable. GiantSnowman 12:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Club plays in the fourth tier of Dutch football and we have articles on all other clubs at this level. Number 57 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Regional press sources are awesome for notability plus there are plenty of other sources just as well! In this particular case I happen to have written the article on the newspaper a while ago, because of its relative importance during most of the years it covered HSV De Zuidvogels. The Zuidvogels entry clearly completes and enriches Wikipedia and should stay because of WP:GNG and WP:NEXIST. I would be able to expand but am very busy at present. Otherwise after the AfD. gidonb (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and referenced anyway. More importantly, I shorted the name per WP:COMMONNAME to Zuidvogels which increased the number of sources by a lot (see below) from a wide variety of media. To the nomimator I recommend doing much better research WP:BEFORE AfDing. Please check Delpher before nominating Dutch subjects and check the name before nominating any article! gidonb (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with plant abilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced list with original research. An article on this topic was previously deleted in 2010. The previous nomination for this article was withdrawn solely because a category exists for this group, but that has nothing to do with the encyclopedicity of this article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - it's true this is missing references, but this is a list and appears to be a meaningful distinction of the characters referenced. - Scarpy (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is meaningfully tied to the category, so whatever outcome happens here should be mirrored there. Also: this seems like an unusual definition, though there has been non-WP coverage of it (though not entirely reliable?), including the blog of an interior landscaping company, the the blog of a specialty toy company, and this list from Comic Book Resources. Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:24, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at least Rename to List of fictional characters with chlorokinetic abilities. Original research. » Shadowowl | talk 09:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have yet to see a single reference. wumbolo ^^^ 10:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am Groot. I am Groot. I am Groot. Andrew D. (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE applies here. Just pointing at 3 policies does not make an argument. This wrong-named list should be deleted. We already know that you want everything to be kept. » Shadowowl | talk 10:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically a transcription of a clickbaity top-10 style list. There are not sufficient sources here to satisfy WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- chronically undersourced and crufty list in the same style as other previously deleted "List of fictional characters with XYZ powers" and the like. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete –What's the point of this? Seems to be WP:OR. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and it doesn't appear to pass WP:V either. Redditaddict69 09:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against future recreation if reliable sources become available. bd2412 T 19:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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